- 6J7-OC/6 7

Public Disclosure Authorized

WORLDBANKTECHNICALPAPERNUMBER126
TRANSPORTAND THE ENVIRONMENTSERIES

Environmental Considerations
for Port and Harbor Developments
Public Disclosure Authorized

John D. Davis, Scott MacKnight,

IMO Staff, and Others
Public Disclosure Authorized

EER FORE ERUGIT

Public Disclosure Authorized

MNUFACTURI SING
LANDTENURE-LMNG Ti
PnI s__mbilONJ*
RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS

No. 63 Mould, FinancialInformationfor Managementofa DevelopmentFinanceInstitution:SomeGuidelines

No. 64 Hillel, The EfficientUseof Waterin Irrigation:PrinciplesandPracticesfor ImprovingIrrigationin Arid
and SemiaridRegions
No. 65 Hegstad and Newport, ManagementContracts:Main Featuresand DesignIssues
No. 66F Godin, Preparationdes projetsurbainsd'ame'nagement
No. 67 Leach and Gowen, HouseholdEnergyHandbook:An Interim Guideand ReferenceManual (also in
French, 67F)
No. 68 Armstrong-Wright and Thiriez, Bus Services:ReducingCosts,RaisingStandards
No.69 Prevost, CorrosionProtectionof PipelinesConveyingWaterand Wastewater:Guidelines
No. 70 Falloux and Mukendi, DesertificationControland RenewableResourceManagementin the Sahelianand
SudanianZonesof WestAfrica(also in French, 70F)
No.71 Mahmood, ReservoirSedimentation:Impact,Extent,and Mitigation
No. 72 Jeffcoateand Saravanapavan, TheReductionand Controlof Unaccounted-forWater:WorkingGuidelines
(also in Spanish, 72S)
No. 73 Palange and Zavala, WaterPollutionControl:Guidelinesfor ProjectPlanningandFinancing(also in
Spanish, 73S)
No. 74 Hoban, EvaluatingTrafficCapacityandImprovementstoRoadGeometry
No. 75 Noetstaller, Small-ScaleMining: A Reviewof the Issues
No. 76 Noetstaller, IndustrialMinerals:A TechnicalReview(also in French, 76F)
No. 77 Gunnerson, WastewaterManagementfor CoastalCities:TheOceanDisposalOption
No. 78 Heyneman and Fagerlind, UniversityExaminationsand StandardizedTesting:Principles,Experience,
and PolicyOptions
No. 79 Murphy and Marchant, Monitoringand Evaluationin ExtensionAgencies(also in French, 79F)
No. 80 Cemea, InvoluntaryResettlementin DevelopmentProjects:PolicyGuidelinesin WorldBank-Financed
Projects(also in Spanish, 80S, and French, 80F)
No. 81 Barrett, UrbanTransportin WestAfrica
No. 82 Vogel,Cost Recoveryin theHealthCareSector:SelectedCountry Studiesin WestAfrica
No. 83 Ewing and Chalk, TheForestIndustriesSector:An OperationalStrategyforDevelopingCountries
No. 84 Vergara and Brown, TheNew Faceof the WorldPetrochemical Sector:Implicationsfor Developing
Countries
No. 85 Ernst &Whinney, Proposalsfor Monitoringthe Performance
of ElectricUtilities
No. 86 Munasinghe, IntegratedNationalEnergyPlanningandManagement:Methodologyand Applicationto Sri
Lanka
No. 87 Baxter, Slade, and Howell, Aid and AgriculturalExtension:Evidencefrom the WorldBankand Other
Donors
No. 88 Vuylsteke, TechniquesofPrivatizationof State-OwnedEnterprises,vol. I:MethodsandImplementation
No. 89 Nankani, Techniquesof Privatizationof State-OwnedEnterprises,vol. II: SelectedCountryCaseStudies
No. 90 Candoy-Sekse, TechniquesofPrivatizationof State-OwnedEnterprises,vol. III: InventoryofCountry
ExperienceandReferenceMaterials
No. 91 Reij,Mulder, and Begemann, WaterHarvestingfor Plant Production:A ComprehensiveReviewof the
Literature
No. 92 The Petroleum Finance Company, Ltd., WorldPetroleumMarkets:A FrameworkforReliableProjection

(Listcontinues on the inside back cover)

 WORLDBANKTECHNICALPAPERNUMBER126
TRANSPORTANDTHE ENVIRONMENT
SERIES

Environmental Considerations
for Port and Harbor Developments

John D. Davis, Scott MacKnight,

IMO Staff, and Others

The World Bank

Washington, D.C.
Copyright i 1990
The International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development/THE WORLDBANK
1818H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433,U.S.A.

All rights reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America
First printing August 1990

Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development
community with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in
accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no
responsibility for errors.
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s)
and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to
members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever
for any consequence of their use. Any maps that accompany the text have been prepared solely for the
convenience of readers; the designations and presentation of material in them do not imply the expression
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bank, its affiliates, or its Board or member countries
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of the authorities thereof or
concerning the delimitation of its boundaries or its national affiliation.
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should
be sent to Director, Publications Department, at the address shown in the copyright notice above. The
World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and, when
the reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee. Permission to photocopy portions
for classroom use is not required, though notification of such use having been made will be appreciated.
The complete backlist of publications from the World Bank is shown in the annual Index of Publications,
which contains an alphabetical title list (with full ordering information) and indexes of subjects, authors,
and countries and regions. The latest edition is available free of charge from the Publications Sales Unit,
Department F, The World Bank, 1818H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433,U.S.A., or from
Publications, The World Bank, 66, avenue d'I6na, 75116Paris, France.

ISSN:0253-7494

Libraryof Congress Cataloging-in-PublicationData

Davis, John D. (John Dunning), 1929-

Environmental considerations for port and harbor developments /
John D. Davis, Scott MacKnight, IMO staff, and others.
p. cm.-(World Bank technical paper. ISSN0253-7494:no.
126. Transport and the environment series)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-8213-1601-X
1. Harbors-Environmental aspects. I. MacKnight, Scott. 1949-
II. International Maritime Organization. m. Title.
IV. Series: World Bank technical paper: no. 126. V. Series:World
Bank technical paper. Transport and the environment series.
TC209.D38 1990
333.91'5-dc2O 90-12875
CIP
 iii -

Absbact

This paper, preparedin associationwith the InternationalMaritimeOrganization(IMO),is aimedat both World

Bank staffassociatedwith lendingoperationsinvolvingport developmentas well as the staff of the Bank'sborrowers-
port authorities,port managersand engineeringstaff and also governmentofficialsresponsiblefor port and maritime
activities. The introductionhighlightstypical environmentalproblemsthat are likelyto be presentin developingcountry
ports but the paper's primary purpose is to act as an aide memoirefor those responsiblefor port and harbor
developmentand who needto knowthe completerangeof topics to be considered,which ones are applicablein their
particularcaseand whereto find more informationon the subject. I is basicallya checklistand the paper is produced
so that it can be used as such. The checklist is followed by more detailed informationon how a certain issue is
normally resolvedand resourcesof informationand assistance.

Although the paper includes discussion on the disposal of dredged sediments, increasing regulatory
constraints and environmentalconcerns with open-waterdisposal at sea led the World Bank to augmentthese
discussionswith a specific annex which addressesthe various disposal options availabletoday and possiblefuture
options. This annex reviewsthe scope of the problem;intergovernmentalagreementsregardingpollution; dredging
equipment;disposaloptions; costs; practicality;reducing the environmentalimpact; and, recommendations on how to
proceed. It is purposely brief so as to provide an overview of the topic. The annex includesthe relevantabstracts
from the London DumpingConvention.
 - v -

AckncWkgMent

The basic structureand contentsof this TechnicalPaper have been put together by John D. Davis,Ph.D.,
who is currently a private consultantspecializing in environmentalsciences, engineering impacts, environmental
programmingand planning, and providing services to a wide range of clients including governmentagencies,
investigatorygroups and legal advisors. He is the authorof a numberof papersand publications,manyof which deal
with the maritimeenvironment.

The Annex to this paperwhich specificallydeals with dredged materialsdisposal is by Scott D. MacKnight,
Ph.D.,OceanChemGroup. Dr. MacKnightis a privateconsultantspecializingin environmentalscienceswith special
referenceto the environmentalaspectsof dredgingand dredgedmaterialdisposalto a wide rangeof clientsincluding
government agencies and private clients. He is the author of a number of papers and publications dealing with
contaminantsin the maritimeenvironment. Both authorspreparedthis paper while consultantsto the Transportation
Division,Infrastructureand Urban DevelopmentDepartmentof the World Bank.

Considerableinput has also been made by the Marine EnvironmentDivision of the InternationalMaritime
Organization(IMO)and in particular by Terene M. Hayes,Manfred Nauke,Bin Okamura,Jon Wonhamand John H.
Karauof that division. The Bank is extremelygratefulto IMOfor their agreementto work closely with the World Bank
on this paper. The Bank's appreciationis acknowledgedto Konstantin1.Voskresensky,Director,Marine Environment
Division,for IMO's cooperation,enthusiasticsupport and professionalinput.

John R. Lethbridge,PortsAdvisor,World Bank,was responsiblefor the preparationof the paper, wrote the
introduction and other sections, and incorporatedwhere appropriatethe many commentsand suggestionsreceived
from a wide range of professionalsboth outsideand inside the World Bank.
 - vii -

Environmental Considerations for Port

and Harbor Development

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1 - SUMMARYOF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTALISSUES 1

A. Introduction 1

B. Common Environmental Problems in Port and Harbor Development 2

Water-Related Impacts 2
Impacts caused by dredging 2
Construction of piers, breakwaters and other structures 3
Ship discharges - oily ballast; bilge water; sewage 3
Spills: detection and clean-up of spills 3

Land-Related Impacts 3
Waterfront Industries 4
Run-off into wetlands 4
Relocation; Lost land use; Involuntary resettlement 4
Dust and other airborne emissions 4
Traffic burdens 4
Waterfront drainage 4

Air-Related Impacts 4
Fugitive emissions 4

Hazardous Materials/Cargoes 5

Socio-Cultural Impacts 5

Existing Port Regulations 5

C. World Bank Policy and Recommended Project

Preparation and Implementation Procedures 6

Identification 7
Impacts Resulting From The Construction Activity 8
Operational impacts 8
Preparation 8
Appraisal 8
Loan Negotiation 9
Implementation 9
Environmental Post-Audits 9

D. Conclusion 9
 - viii -

PART II - CHECK LIST 11

1. Water-Related Impacts 11

1.1 Impacts caused by dredging 11

1.2 Impacts of dredged material disposal 11
1.3 Construction of piers, breakwaters and
other waterside structures 12
1.4 Alteration of harbor/port ship traffic patterns 12
1.5 Ship discharges--oily ballast; bilge water;
sewage 13
1.6 Spills: detection and clean-up of spills 13
1.7 Waterfront industry discharges--sanitary
and non-sanitary 14

2. Land-Related Impacts 15

2.1 Excavation for fill 15

2.2 Wetland damage and filling 15
2.3 Loss of usable uplands to expanding
waterfront/industrial areas 16
2.4 Noise from ports and harborside industry 16
2.5 Effects of dust and other airborne emissions 16
2.6 Traffic burden projections 16
2.7 Handling and disposal of solid shore generated
wastes 17
2.8 Runoff from raw material storage 17
2.9 Waterfront drainage 17
2.10 Industrial liquid wastes not discharged to harbor 17

3. Air-Related Impacts 18

3.1 Important background information 18

3.2 Fugitive emissions 18
3.3 Gases, smoke, and fumes 18

4. Hazardous Materials/Cargoes 18

4.1 Categories--gases, liquids, solids 18

5. Socio-Cultural Impacts 19

6. Review of existing and proposed regulations affecting

the proposed port or harbor development and its
construction 19

7. Need for construction or facility operation

environmental monitoring 19
 - ix -

PART III - TECHNICAL SECTION 20

Part III is the main text of the Technical Paper. It provides the
user with guidance on how to approach the environmental problems issues
and impacts that have been identified from the Check List review of the
proposed development. The order of presentation is the same as the
Check List.

1. Water-Related Impacts 20

1.1 Impacts caused by dredging 20

1.2 Impacts of dredged material disposal 21
1.3 Construction of piers, breakwaters, other
waterside structures 22
1.4 Alteration of harbor/port ship traffic patterns 23
1.5 Ship discharges--oily ballast; bilge water; sewage 24
1.6 Spills: detection and clean-up of spills 28
1.7 Waterfront industry discharges--sanitary and
non-sanitary 29

2. Land-Related Impacts 33

2.1 Excavation for fill 33

2.2 Wetland damage and filling 34
2.3 Loss of usable uplands to expanding water-
front/industrial areas 36
2.4 Noise from ports and harborside industry 36
2.5 Effects of dust and other airborne emissions 37
2.6 Traffic burden projections 37
2.7 Handling and disposal of solid shore generated
wastes 38
2.8 Runoff from raw material storage 39
2.9 Waterfront drainage 40
2.10 Industrial liquid wastes not discharged to harbor 40

3. Air-Related Impacts 41

3.1 Important background information 41

3.2 Fugitive emissions 42
3.3 Gases, Smoke and Fumes 42

4. Hazardous Materials/Cargoes 43

4.1 Categories--gases, liquids, solids 43

5. Socio-Cultural Impacts 43

6. Review of Existing and Proposed Regulations Affecting

the Project and its Construction 44

7. Need for Construction or Facility Operation Environ-

mental Monitoring 44
 - x -

PART IV - BIBLIOGRAPHY 45

Annex I - The Environmentally Sound Disposal of

Dredged Materials 47

Attachment I London Dumping Convention - Annexes I, II, & III

Attachment II Guidelines for Application of the Annexes to the

Dispoal of Dredged Materials
 PART I - SUMMARYOF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTALISSUES

A. Introduction

The World Bank's experiencehas shown that port, harbor and

similar maritime developmentscan have serious implicationsfor many
aspects of the environment. Because of the nature of maritime works, a
wide range of very different environmentalactivities are likely to be
affected in one way or another,many of these permanently. This Technical
Paper has been prepared with the object of providing assistanceto World
Bank staff engaged in the appraisal of lending operationsassociatedwith
port and harbor developmentand also to help the management and staff of
ports and port authorities in less developed countries (LDC's) appreciate
the full range of topics to be considered in dealingwith environmental
aspects of their ports and harbors.

The Bank's experience during the past decade has demonstratedthe

need for early attention to the environmentaldimensionsof project work.
Developments require sound management of natural resources,particularly
renewable resources,and systematicattention to their impact on the
environment. Renewable resources include living resources (plants,animals
and fishes) and other natural resources (particularlysoils and water) that
create or sustain life and that are self-renewingif not mismanaged. The
Bank has also found that:

- environmentaldamage can be prevented or greatly reduced at

a cost which is financiallyacceptableto its borrowers.

- environmentalprotectionmeasures can often be shown to

have economic benefits that exceed their economic costs.
In other cases qualitativeor not readily quantified
benefits, particularlyfrom avoidance of irreversible
effects,may readily justify the cost of protection. In
most cases, preventivemeasures give more effective
protection and at less cost than later remedialmeasures.

Port and harbor developmentnormally create local environmental

problems, although those developmentsassociatedwith estuaries or rivers
may result in regional effects. The type of local problem that may occur
include: accelerated erosion or acretion; the loss of animal, plant or
marine species or the natural habitats on which they depend; the contamina-
tion of a fishery through uncontrolledrun-off or waste disposal; occupa-
tional and health hazards; salt wedge intrusion;pollution from Shf'
or discharges;the disposal of polluted dredged materials from mai:.
dredging activities, etc. The Bank must endeavor to ensure that the
economic developmentwhich it is promoting does not exceed the regenerative
capacities of the environment.

This Technical Paper presents the more common environmental

problems that are likley to be encounteredin the developmentof ports and
harbors and followswith a comprehensive'check list" of environmental
issues which can be used by Bank Staff or the management of ports to ensure
that they have considered all of the possible issues that might affect
their particular project. The main text of the paper then provides
additional information and guidance on how to proceed for each of the items
in the check list. The paper is not fully comprehensive and it will be
necessary to refer to authoritative sources for assistance in many
instances. Where possible these sources have been defined.

Because of the worldwide concern for the environmentally sound

disposal of polluted materials resulting from dredging operations and the
need for solutions to the disposal problem, an Annex is included which
specifically addresses the nature of the problem, the issues, the
international regulatory framework and the technical solutions currently
available and being researched.

B. Common Environmental Problems in Port and Harbor Development

This Technical Paper is intended to bring to the attention of the

reader the various aspects of port, harbor and maritime development that
could result in an impact on the environment. Clearly, for any particular
project, only some of these topics need to be considered. Also, the
impacts that have to be considered in a port project in the Seychelles will
be quite different from those in a port project in Turkey. Even for
projects in adjacent countries the impacts are likely to be very different
as a consequence of the type of development proposed, the cargo being
handled, the geography, the hydrology, the relative urban and industrial
locations, and numerous other factors.

There are, however, some environmental aspects of port and harbor

development which seem to occur with greater frequency than others and
these are discussed below.

Water-Related Impacts

Impacts caused by dredging (1.1)1 A common problem, particularly in

tropical countries is the dispersal and settlement of resuspended sediments
on sensitive aquatic ecosystems (e.g. coral reefs) as a consequence of a
nearby dredging operation. Concern may be expressed that the reef
structure will be permanently damaged. This is not often the case,
however, and there are many examples of coral reefs where, soon after the
completion of the dredging activities, examination showed that the reef was
quite undamaged. In the case of regular maintenance dredging type of work
the consequences may not be the same and would need to be carefully
investigated. Serious problems may result from deepening operations in an
estuary which permits the salt wedge intrusion to travel higher upstream
than previously and thus changing the regime of bankside wetlands as well
as the river. Similarly, deepening can result in increased shoreline wave
action with consequent accelerated erosion and other problems.

The numbers shown here refer to the paragraph numbers used in the main
text of this technical paper.
 - 3 -

Construction of piers, breakwaters and other structures (1.3) Breakwaters,

groynes, training walls and similar structures provide the biggest
problems. Particularly erosion and accretion effects where such structures
are built in a zone of high littoral sediment transport. In some
instances, the possibility of providing sediment by-passing arrangements
may be necessary to preserve downdrift coastlines and structures. Inlet
type structures also need particular care in design to avoid excessively
high tidal flow velocities and the associated risks for small craft
navigation. The creation of a sheltered basin through the use of
breakwaters can often result in difficult sea conditions within the basin
as a consequence of wave reflection and resonance resulting in a number of
problems which can be mitigated through modelling and the construction of
spending beaches and non-reflective quaywalls.

Ship discharges - oily ballast; bilge water; sewage. (1.5) The

International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is charged with the prevention
and control of pollution of the marine environment from ships and has
recently adopted a series of conventions which require ports to provide
facilities to receive wastes from vessels using the port. Whilst
essential, these facilities are relatively expensive to provide and, in
some cases for LDC's, the maintenance is onerous because of the
difficulties and costs involved in the ultimate disposal of the wastes.
This can be quite a burden for an LDC port and projects may well need to
include these facilities as a component.

The effects of anti-fouling paints on bottom dwelling marine

organisms - particularly clams and oysters - when the depth is relatively
shallow and there are a number of craft moored in one location can be
severe. A number of countries have banned the use of paints containing
tributyl-tin for this reason. Where shallow small craft harbors exist in
close proximity to beds of such organisms the situation should be reviewed
carefully. Floating dry-dock operations need special attention in this
respect.

Spills: detection and clean-up of spills (1.6) The avoidance of spills of

all kinds is a key requirement. Many LDC ports are currently extremely lax
in enforcing regulations and controlling vessels - both visiting ships and
their own local and port craft. It is a question of discipline and strong
control by the harbor master. The provision of cleaning/skimming equipment
and specialised oil spill response equipment is essential together with a
trained crew to operate it. Important spills in LDC ports that require
strict attention is the spillage of grains on the sea floor adjacent to
quays and wind blown dusts from dry bulk cargoes such as bauxite,
phosphates, sulphur and coal.

Land-RelatedImpacts

Waterfront Industries There will be many instanceswhere the proposed port

development is centered on the establishmentof an industrywhich needs
port or waterfront lands. Examples are steel plants, aluminium smelters,
papermills, and etc. Although the port component of the industry is a
relatively small part of the complex, the Bank port engineer and port
 - 4 -

authority must consider all of the environmental impacts of the industry

(even though the prime responsibility rests with the industry sponsors) and
be satisfied that the environmental issues are being appropriately
addressed.

Run-off into wetlands (2.2.4) In many ports the run-off from open storage
areas leads to adjacent wetlands resulting in the area becoming degraded
and acting as a sink for contaminants. Better control of the quality of
the run-off is needed in most cases.

Relocation; lost land use; involuntary resettlement (2.3.2) There are many
instances where port expansion results in the need to relocate an existing
village, or a fishermen's beach or agricultural lands. An acceptable
resettlement plan will have to be made an integral part of the project.
Socio-economic studies are started as soon as project design begins since
resettlement can be more complicated than the project engineering and very
time consuming. The resettlement costs can reach a very high proportion of
the project costs. The Bank now has systematic and detailed policy
designed to ensure successful resettlement. One of the criteria is that
the displaced people shall be preferably better off and certainly no worse
off after relocation.

Dust and other airborne emissions (2.5) Wind blown dust from stockpiles of
bulk materials is a major problem in some ports and needs to be properly
controlled using modern methods and technology.

Traffic burdens (2.6) Because of the location of many LDC ports very
difficult issues arise over the increased road traffic to and from port
areas. This is a particularly acute problem where the main arteries to and
from the port pass through heavily built up and congested urban areas and
there is little or no way to provide alternative routes - the only solution
may be to relocate the port.

Waterfront drainage (2.9) This is a major consideration for almost every

existing port. The traditional design of quay has included slopes on the
hard- standings and aprons behind the quay to permit rainfall to discharge
over the quay wall into the port or harbor waters. As a consequence,
anything spilled on the ports working surface eventually finds its way into
the sea. Spillages and breakages will always occur, even in the best
managed ports, and, with the advent of cargo handling equipment with
extensive hydraulic systems, spills of hydraulic oil from burst hoses can
be frequent. Thus it is prudent to design the quay structure so that
stormwater can be collected and allowed to pass through a separator before
being discharged and all new structures should be designed in this way.
The cost of converting existing waterfront structure may be prohibitive and
would probably involve the installation of sizeable pumping facilities -
especially in tropical countries with high rainfall intensities.

Air-Related Impacts

Fugitive emissions (3.2) Wind blown dust can be a major problem. Coal
dust, bauxite, cereals, phosphates, are typical materials being handled in
 - 5 -

bulk in LDC ports and where measures to control dust dispersionare

required. Fortunately the technologyand techniquesfor control are
available and in many instances the costs are not excessive or prohibitive.

Hazardous materials/cargoes(4)

The risks and dangers associatedwith the transit of hazardous materials

through LDC ports are frequentlyignored. It is an area of major concern
and Bank staff and port authorities should ensure that measures are
introducedto monitor and control the passage of such goods through the
port. Typical examples of cargoes that are often treated just as normal
types of cargo are pesticides in drums, corrosive chemicals in jars or
drums, minor explosives, and cylinders of pressurized gases.

Socio-CulturalImpacts (5)

Port development often has social, political and cultural impacts.

Restrictive labor practices, religious practices,and social behavior
patterns become serious problems when introducingnew technology such as
pre-slung cargo techniques,container terminals (with 24 hour working) and
Ro-Ro vessels. Extreme care and continuousdialogueswith the various
parties involvedwill be necessary before some of the newer technologies
can be successfullyintroduced. Increased productivityis a common goal,
but there are many obstacles associatedwith working hours, gang
composition,the increaseduse of the private sector, the use of electronic
data processing and the introductionof multiple shift working. Labour
redundancy is a major problem to be addressed in almost every port in the
world. The Bank has studied this problem in depth and the experiences of
other ports has been compiled.

Existing Port Regulations (6)

Port management is generally charged with the provision,operation,

maintenance, improvementand regulationof the facilities. The regulatory
aspects cover many activitiessome of which result in environmental
impacts. Typical of these are concernedwith safety,health, handling of
hazardous cargoes, working conditions,avoidance and control of spillages,
housekeepingand waste disposal. It is essential that the existing port
regulationsbe reviewed through the use of the check list in this paper to
identify any possible conflict or omission. The most common problems in
LDC ports are those associatedwith health and particularlysafety. For
instance, it is common to see port workers handling copper ingots from
lighters to shore and ship wearing no shoes, hard hats or adequate
clothing. Accidents may be infrequent,but this type of practice should
not be allowed to continue. Adequate safety regulationsshould be
implemented in all ports - regardlessof their location.
 - 6 -

C. World Bank Policy and Recommended Project Preparation and

Implementation Procedures

World Bank policy emphasizes the need for prudence when assessing
environmental effects, especially when these are irreversible. Prevention
is preferable and generally less costly than remedial actions, which may
not always be possible. Some environmental effects take a long time before
they become identifiable. Therefore, the Bank considers the environmental
aspects of projects in a longer time frame, 25-50 years and more.

Rather than adopting environmental standards, the Bank's approach

is tailored to local circumstances and respects the vast differences among
its LDC members. The practice is to consider each project unique with
respect to its total setting and to the abilities of the port and other
national authorities concerned with the environment. This Technical Paper
is considered to be the forerunner to a World Bank set of environmental
guidelines on port and harbor development which would be distilled from a
wide range of accepted international recommendations and standards. Bank
guidelines have been published for other sectors and, where they exist,
they suggest acceptable ranges to be followed in Bank operations, unless
the borrowing country's standards are more strict - in which case the coun-
try's standards are adopted. The principle2 behind these guidelines may be
summarized as follows. The Bank:

- will not finance projects that cause severe or irreversible

environmental deterioration without mitigatory measures accept-
able to the Bank (for example, reclamation of extensive wetlands
accompanied by the diversion of a river outlet for the creation
of port areas).

- will not finance projects that unduly compromise the public's

health and safety (for example, the handling of certain chemical
products from ship/shore using labour intensive methods).

- will not finance projects that displace people or seriously

disadvantage certain vulnerable groups without taking mitigatory
measures acceptable to the Bank (for example, the displacement
of a beach used as a base of operations by traditional fishermen
to make way for port expansion).

- will not finance projects that contravene any international

environmental agreement to which the member country concerned is
a party (for example, the IMO MARPOL Conventions concerning the
need to provide shore facilities for the reception of wastes
from vessels).

- will not finance a project that could significantly harm the

environment of a neighboring country without the consent of that
country (examples are, causing serious erosion problems to a
neighboring country's coastline as a consequence of breakwater

2/ Source: Environmental Requirements of the World Bank, 1985.

 - 7 -

construction,or, changing the regime of a river which serves

two or more countries).

- endeavors to ensure that projects with unavoidable adverse

consequencesfor the environment are sited in areas where the
environmentaldamage is minimised, even at somewhat greater
costs (for example, the relocationof port facilitiesto avoid
complex urban and land congestionproblems even though this
implies more costly communicationsand constructioncosts).

Projects with unavoidable adverse effects on the environment

should contain an adequate compensatorycomponent. This type of
compensationhas been institutionalisedin port projects where people are
involuntarilyresettled. In other situations- as in a project where an
existing small craft and fishing vessel anchoragehas been absorbed into
the port's navigable areas - a compensatorycomponentwould set aside or
create an alternative anchoragewith protectionand qualities similar to
the original.

The Bank's environmentalexperiencehas shown that it is fundamen-

tal to the good design of developmentprojects and feasible to incorporate
suitablemeasures to protect the environment. A pragmatic approach, as
insisted on by the Bank, is the key. Each project being regarded as unique
within its environmentalsetting. The environmentalwork thus becomes a
continuousprocess during the preparation and implementationof the project
and not a discreet or "add-on"component. Environmentalcriteria should be
factored into the planning and design decisions togetherwith economic and
engineering criteria from the very earliest identificationstage of the
project, but, may be added or modified in varying degrees through prepara-
tion, appraisal,negotiationsand supervision.

Identification: Port projects being proposed or considered for Bank

financing must be reviewed as early as possible to identify possible signi-
ficant environmental effects. This review would determine, first, what
investigations, studies, surveys, etc., are needed to ensure that appropri-
ate measures will prevent or mitigate any serious adverse effects attribut-
able to the project; and second, whether the project's environmental costs
or risks can be avoided entirely. When they cannot be avoided, the evalua-
tion of the project should include an impact balance sheet to enable the
adverse environmental impacts to be weighed against the quantified benefits
and costs used in the usual benefit cost analysis.

Although the port authority or borrower is responsible for taking

the action that is needed, more than likely, in many cases it will be the
Bank's port engineer who will have an important role in guiding the
borrower's staff and management on how to proceed. The engineer can
request assistance from the Bank's environmental staff or other sources to
help him in this task. (Eventually, the Bank's staff will have to be
satisfied that the borrower has taken appropriate action.) The main
objective of this Technical Paper is to provide the Port Engineer, or other
Bank staff, with a clear guide of the full scope of port and harbor
environmental issues which may need to be considered. By going through the
 - 8 -

Check List of the Paper it will become apparent which of the items will
need to be considered in the context of the project being identified.

The environmental impacts likely to result from the project can be

classified as follows:

- Impacts resulting from the construction activity

These commence usually as soon as construction starts and
cease soon after the end of the construction period.
However, impacts may persist beyond the construction period
especially if they result from unnecessarily disruptive or
careless engineering/construction practices.

- Operational impacts - there are three categories

i) those that are losses or degradation of the environment
and result from some alteration (frequently
irreversible) attributable to the project;
ii) those that are not necessarily irreversible but persist
as long as the project continues to operate and the
related activities continue; and,
iii)those resulting from the decommissioning of redundant
facilities coupled with the need to rehabilitate the
affected areas to an acceptable environmental standard.

Preparation: The borrower is responsible for project preparation. The

Bank may assist in carrying out the necessary environmental investigations,
studies or surveys. The Bank assistance could take the form of help in
preparing TOR's, financing the costs of the work, and in reviewing the
draft final reports. In some cases this work can be undertaken concurrent-
ly with, and as part of, the project feasibility studies. Following their
completion and based on the results and recommendations, the detailed engi-
neering for the project should then incorporate measures designed to avoid
or mitigate serious environmental risks or to enhance environmental bene-
fits. In providing the TOR for the consultants or others responsible for
the detailed engineering, it may be appropriate to refer to the Check List
to avoid possible omissions and to ensure a common approach. It is poss-
ible that further need for additional environmental studies could be
identified at this stage which need to be completed prior to appraisal or
could be delayed until the project is effective.

In marine environmental impacts, there is very often the need for

monitoring of water quality and the sea floor by marine biologists and
other specialists. This monitoring should be commenced during the prepara-
tion stage and continued in many cases long after the completion of the
project. This type of monitoring is best carried out by local organiza-
tions and in many countries the marine zoology or biology departments of
the university are both keen and appropriate to carry out this type of
work. If necessary their activities could be funded through the project.

Appraisal: As part of the appraisal process, the Bank assesses the envi-
ronmental findings, evaluates the future magnitude and timing of adverse
effects, and assesses whether the preventive, mitigatory or remedial mea-
 - 9 -

sures proposed will be adequate. The Staff Appraisal Report should

describe the environmentalmeasures being provided and the extent of any
further environmentalstudies, surveys or monitoring that are required
under the project. It will be on the basis of the appraisal that agreement
is reached on environmentalmeasures to be incorporatedinto the detailed
engineeringand operation of the project.

Loan Negotiation: Preferably importantproject issues should be resolved

with the borrower prior to the negotiations. Where necessary,however,
environmentalrequirementswill be discussed at negotiationsbetween the
Bank and the borrower, and the loan agreementmay contain covenants or
other provisions concernedwith environmentalaspects of the project.
Since the Bank seeks to ensure that the project's constructionimpact and
operational impactswill not unnecessarilyharm the environment,satisfac-
tory evidence to this effect may be required as a condition for loan effec-
tiveness or disbursement. Typical provisionsmight include the need for
regular hydrographic surveys to record accretion or erosion effects; regu-
lar monitoring of adjacent coral reefs or of sea water quality; legislation
concerning resettlementof displaced people; the provision of wastewater
treatment facilities;etc.

Implementation: Environmentalmeasures are frequentlyimplemented during

the constructionstage of a port or harbor project. The Bank's staff,
during the course of supervisionmissions, should routinely review environ-
mental aspects with the borrower and must ensure that the measures pre-
viously agreed upon are adequate and being responsablyadministered. It is
possible that during the implementationperiod and at the start up of ope-
rations that additionalor modified measureswill be needed. These should
be discussedwith the borrower, recorded and arrangementsmade for their
implementation. A typical example of this type of action could result from
the monitoring of the sea floor showing the effects of a breakwatercon-
structed at the commencementof the project is giving rise to unexpected
environmentaleffects which require further study or additionalworks.

EnvironmentalPost-Audits: The Project CompletionReport (PCR) will des-

cribe the results of the environmentalmeasures provided in the project and
will comment on their appropriateness,costs, adequacy, and administration
as well as any problems that arose or changes that were made during the
implementationof the project and the start up of new operations. On the
basis of the PCR the Bank's OperationsEvaluation Department identifies
projects which have significantenvironmentalissues to be audited. Such
PCR's/auditsprovide a basis for assessing at least the shorter-term
efficacy of the environmentalmeasures and thereby provide lessons to be
learned for future projects with similar impacts.

D. Conclusion

The World Bank attaches great importanceto environmentalaspects

of development projects. In the case of port and harbor development,ports
and port authorities,consultingfirms and Bank port engineers and other
staff are expected to provide effective and thoroughenvironmentalinput
into the project concept, preparation,detailed engineering,construction
 - 10 -

and operation. This implies the need for adequate environmentalunits

within each of the bodies or agencies responsible for the project. Where
such units do not exist then outside expertisewill be required in many
instances. The use of this Technical Paper with its accompanyingCheck
List is aimed directly at helping those responsiblefor the project to
recognize the very wide range of environmentalimpacts that can result from
port and harbor development. It is unlikely that every aspect will be
involved in any one project. It is for the Bank's staff and the staff of
the borrower to decide from a review of the Check List which activities
will need to be investigated.

In some countries, in order to comply with existing legislation,

environmentalimpact statementswill have to be prepared for port and
harbor developmentprojects. The preparation of such a statement should
also address, the Bank's concerns about the impacts and the mitigatory and
compensatorymeasures to be implementedunder a Bank financial project.
 - 11 -

PART II - CHECK LIST

Note to users: One of the principal objectivesof this paper is to provide

those engaged in port and harbor developmentwith as complete a listing as
possible of the many and varied environmentalimpacts that should be
considered. To help in using the paper we have includeda small box
against each paragraph which users can check as they go through the paper
to note their having consideredthis particularaspect for the project
under preparation.

1.0 WATER-RELATEDIMPACTS.

1.1 Impacts caused by dredging.

[ ] 1.1.1 Dispersal and settlementof resuspended sediments:

Toxic, harmful substancesin water column. Reduced available
oxygen, sunlight penetration.Smotheringbottom biota. Silt
curtains to restrict dispersal. Relative impact of dredging
methods. Knowledge of tidal and river flows.

1.1.2 Effects of blasting:

Compression effects. Indirecteffects on fisheries. Damage to
shorezone and bulkhead structures.

1.1.3 Results of altered bathymetry:

Influence on tidal and river flows. Altered salt wedge intru-
sion. Acceleratednatural sediment deposition. Attraction of
desirable or undesirable fisheries. Altered bottom biota.

[ ] 1.1.4 Effects of changing shoreline configuration:

Change in current patterns. Shorezone and beach erosion. Accel-
erated sediment deposition--shoaling.

[ ] 1.1.5 Loss of bottom habitat, shellfisheries,fishery food resources:

Exposed subsurfacematerials unconducive to recolonization.
Lost attachmentpotential for aquatic biota. Current pattern
changes.

1.1.6 Altered groundwaterflows:

Salt water intrusion.Accelerated groundwaterflow to estuary.
Undermining of land-edge sediments.Saltwater intrusion to
potable water supplies.

[ ] 1.2 Impacts of dredged material disposal

[ ] 1.2.1 Selection of appropriatedisposal site:

Disposal on land. Disposal in water. Desired character of dis-
posal areas. Methods of dredging and dredged material transfer
and related disposal impacts.
 - 12 -

[ 1.2.2 Unique Characteristics of Dredged Material

[ 1.2.3 Disposal Methods

1.2.4 Disposal on land:

Drainage. Loss of vegetation. Disposal of contaminants (toxics).
Slumping. Revegetation. Aquifer contamination. Leaching of
salt, etc.

[ ] 1.2.5 Disposal in water--harbor/river or at sea:

Dredged material transport and dumping methods. Loss of bottom
biota. Biological recolonization rates. Potential or require-
ments for capping. Alteration of current patterns. Accelerated
shoaling. Use of artificial islands.

[ 1.3 Construction of piers, breakwaters and other waterside struc-

tures (new or extensionlreplacement of existing structures):

] 1.3.1 Filling or excavation covers/removes bottom biota and habitat:

Shellfisheries. Fishery food resources lost or displaced.

] 1.3.2 New habitats formed by structures (especially pilings and break-

waters): Desirable, undesirable species introduced.

] 1.3.3 Filled structures (including breakwaters):

Alter currents. Sediment deposition accelerated. Scouring
increased. Change required in harbor maintenance dredging
practices. New navigation routines. Protection of submerged
pipelines.

[ ] 1.3.4 Disturbance from pile driving, other construction activities:

Temporarily displace fisheries and other mobile marine/estuarine
resources.

[ ] 1.3.5 Dispersal of suspended sediments:

Smothering of bottom biota. Reduced light penetration.
Displaced fisheries.

] 1.3.6 Piling-supported structures--effects:

Shade bottom. Change habitat. Attract desirable or undesirable
species. Accelerated sediment deposition. Increased berth main
enance dredging. Increased nearby bottom scouring.

[ 1.3.7 Release of preservatives from installed wood structures:

Prevent borer establishment. Contaminate fisheries. Release
heavy metals to surrounding waters.

[ 1.4 Alteration of harbor/port ship traffic patterns:

3 1.4.1 Changes in channel, anchorage and turning basin locations:

Dredging and dredge material disposal. Increased frequency of
maintenance dredging. (See Section 1.1).
 - 13 -

[ ] 1.4.2 Relocation of navigationmarkers, moorings:

Assurance of locationprecision. Designationof channels for
arrival/departuretraffic.

1.4.3 Addition of new channels, anchorages, turning basins requiring

improvementdredging. (See Section 1.1.)

[ ] 1.4.4 Improved procedures for vessel traffic control (VTS) systems.

Requirements for collision avoidance systems. Radar. Shore-
based radar reflectors.LORAN-C, GPS, DECCA, etc. Requirements
for ships using facility. Pilotage.

[ ] 1.4.5 Increased provision for vessel handling and servicing:

Additional tugs, lighters, service vessels. Vessel repair
facilities.Drydocks. Graving Docks.

[ ] 1.5 Ship discharges--oilyballast; bilge water; sewage.

[ 1.5.1 Promulgationof regulationscontrolling cleaning procedures,

limitations of release of cargo and machinery space residues:
Discharge limitations--examples cited. Need for facilitiesto
receive waste from ships. Means of storage and ultimate disposal
of residualwastes.

[ ] 1.5.2 Environmentalsensitivityto discharges from ships. Importance

to fishery resources.General water quality of rivers, bays,
harbors. Effects if requirementsnot imposed or regulationsnot
enforced.

[ 1.5.3 Developmentof shore facilitiesfor receiving ship generated

sewage and garbage waste. Sanitary treatment facilities-
-connection to special or municipal systems. Transfer and
pumping facilities. Ultimate disposal of these wastes.

1.5.4 Effects of antifoulingpaints:

Relation to ships in dock. Ships in repair. Repair and mainte-
nance practices allowed,not allowed. Effects on biota in
water, fisheries.types of antifoulants--tributyl-tin, copper
based. Vessels berthed in shallow water.

[ ] 1.6 Spills: detection and clean-up of spills.

[ 3 1.6.1 Types of Spills:

Oils. Lubricants.Hydraulic oils. Fuels. Liquid and solid chemi-
cals. Behavior in water. Likely causes of spills. Frequent
spill sources--equipment,faulty practices.

[ ] 1.6.2 Resources at risk:

Identify areas subject to spills. Aquatic resourcesmost likely
in jeopardy: Spill-proneareas. Shellfish resources.Fishery
resources. Aquaculture operations.
 - 14 -

1.6.3 Spill clean-up measures:

Regulations. Clean-up equipment available, to be added. Spill
retention measures--equipment, emergency procedures. Spill
detection routines.

[ ] 1.6.4 Dry cargo releases:

Fugitive emissions. Dust control. Enclosed loading and
unloading systems. Smoke density and effects.

1.6.5 See also hazardous cargoes.

[] 1.7 Waterfront industry discharges--sanitary and non-sanitary.

3 1.7.1
1 Sanitary wastes:
Sources. Volumes. Special contaminants. Produced by project.
Not produced by project.

[ ] 1.7.1.1 Sanitary treatment facilities:

Existing. Planned. Proposed. Capacity of each. Locations.
Discharge water quality--actual and designed. Ability to
handle shipping.

[ ] 1.7.2 Non-sanitary wastes.

Sources. Volumes. Important contaminants (toxics). Produced
by project. Not produced by project.

] 1.7.2.1 Discharge/treatment procedures.

Capacities. Piping systems. How discharged/treated. Discharge
limitations--imposed, actual. Residuals--actual, designed.

[ ] 1.7.2.2 Discharges reaching harbor/river waters.

Behavior in water, sediments. Dispersion. Settling
tendencies. Chemical reactions in water. Effects on biota,
aquaculture.

1.7.2.3 Possible needed retention and treatment systems:

Feasibility. Costs. Cost effectiveness. Possible resource
recovery.

] 1.7.2.4 Non-sanitary spillage from non-ship related activities.

Types of spills. Frequency. Volumes. How handled. Retention/
recovery systems. Emergency routines.

] 1.7.2.5 Non-sanitary discharges/releases from ship repair.

Paints. Paint compounds. Other chemicals--hydraulic fluids,
etc. Antifoulants. Ship refuse.

[ ] 1.7.3 Heated process water discharges.

Electricity generation. Industrial processes. LNG condensa-
tion. Port/harbor hydrography. Tidal prisms. Effects of
heated water on biota. Use in aquaculture. Definition of
mixing zones. Potential for blocking fish passage.
 - 15 -

1.7.4 Brine from desalinization plants.

Efficiency of mixing. Salinity of receiving waters.
Port/harbor hydrography. Tidal prisms. Efficiency of
diffusion. Effects on biota, aquaculture.

2.0 LAND-RELATED IMPACTS.

] 2.1 Excavation for fill (rock or aggregate).

2.1.1 Loss of upland vegetation.

Cropland. Windbreaks. Degradation of Upland appearance. Soil
cover. Prevention of erosion. Mudslide potential. Flooding
potential.

2.1.2 Damage from shore sand/gravel excavation.

Coastal dunes. Destabilization of shorezone. Acceleration of
inland dune migration. Increased sandstorm frequency.

[ ] 2.1.3 Dust (fugitive emissions).

From drilling. Truck traffic and construction equipment. Wind
velocity, direction. Dust control and suppression measures.

[ ] 2.1.4 Blasting and Its Effects.

Control of debris. Danger from inadequate blast zone coverage.
Work area restrictions. Safety regulations. Damage to
aquifers. Noise. Dust. Threats to livestock.

[ ] 2.1.5 Requirements for land restoration.

Pre-construction assessment of land appearance. Aesthetics.
Restoration techniques. Landscaping. Constructive use of
restored land cover. Need for selection criteria for filled
lands to avoid nearshore storm surge inundation.

2.2 Wetland damage and filling.

Discussion of needs. Purpose.

2.2.1 Ecological value of wetlands.

Agricultural use. Waterfowl use. Use by domestic animals. Use
by other fauna. Unique vegetation. Food source for aquatic or
non-aquatic biota. Irrigation water source.

[ ] 2.2.2 Flood plain functions.

River flooding retention capacity. Tidal flooding capacity.
Water retention intervals. Flooding related to irrigation
source capacity.

[ ] 2.2.3 Watershed/groundwater source quality:

Groundwater recharge function. Groundwater discharge function.
Relation to used aquifer(s). Source of surface streams. Flow
rates.
 - 16 -

2.2.4 Runoff (longterm) from developed areas (including ports and

harbor facilities). Receiving function for natural surface
runoff. Receiving area for developed area runoff--municipal,
industrial. Existing contamination input. Contaminant buildup
rates. Present background contaminant levels.

2.3 Loss of usable uplands to expanding waterfront/industrial

areas.

r ] 2.3.1 Types of land areas likely lost to industrial or waterfront

use. Farmlands. Residential areas. Market centers. Commercial
areas.

2.3.2 Extent to which relocation compensates for lost land use.

Extent of involuntary re-settlement. Residential relocation.
Replacement farmlands. Other replacement/relocation needs.
Requirements for associated needs-water, sewer, electricity,
roads, fuel, etc.

[ 2.4 Noise from ports and harborside industry.

[ 2.4.1 Planning for possible strategic location of noise sources.

Determination of existing background. Prediction of noise
addition. Buffer zones. Designation of special high noise
areas. Control of construction noise. Suppression, muffled
equipment.

[ 2.5 Effects of dust and other airborne emissions.

[ 3 2.5.1 Dust and other non-combustion particulates.

Sources--industrial, construction. Raw material storage.
Intensity. Periodicity. Wind rose indication of most likely
affected areas. Smothering of shorezones and coral reefs.
Screening by vegetation, windbreaks.

[ 2.5.2 Smoke and other combustion products.

Sources--ships, traffic, industry. Emission composition
(toxics?). Control equipment in place, required. Regulatory
requirements/limits. Wind rose data to indicate probable
impact areas.

[ 2.6 Traffic burden projections.

[ 2.6.1 Existing traffic load.

Roadway network. Traffic load. Accident data. Types of
traffic. Periodicity. Weight loading. Pavement damage. Axle
load limits, etc.

[ ] 2.6.2 Projected traffic increases.

Needed roadway additions/improvements. Important routes.
Traffic loads--commercial, construction. Destinations. Needs
for traffic control.
 - 17 -

2.7 Handling and disposal of solid shore generated wastes.

[ ] 2.7.1 Important sources.

Ships. Waterfront industrialareas. Residentialareas.

[ 2.7.2 Means of transport/transfer.

Ship-to-shore.Onshore. Vehicle types. Compactors.
Intermediatecollecting sites.

[ ] 2.7.3 Disposal methods.

[ ] 2.7.3.1 Incineration.
Proper siting. Possible recycling.Possible emissions (toxics,
etc., --see Section 2.5.2). Disposal of residual ash. Energy
generation.

[ 2.7.3.2 Landfills.
Proper siting. Aquifer/groundwaterprotection. Need to pro-
tect shoreline from erosion, etc. Site preparation.Surface
water control--runoff. Proximity to water supplies--surface
and subsurface,farmlands.Materials deposited, including
incinerationash. Avoid placement in nearshore areas subject
to erosion. Use of filter cloths and silt fences.

[ 3 2.8 Runoff from raw material storage.

[ 2.8.1 Nature of materials.

Salt. Sulfur. Metal ores. Refined concentrates.Potential for
toxic releases.

[ 3 2.8.2 Exposure effects.

Typical storage conditions.Locations. Storage time. Weather-
ing effects--rain,wind, sun. Health menace to workforce.
Need for containment of runoff. Protectionof groundwater.
Need for enclosure, cover. Grain spillage--measuresto
prevent/control.

3 2.9 Waterfront drainage.

2.9.1 Drainage components.

Contaminants (toxics?).Volumes. Oils (hydraulic,etc.).

2.9.2 Drainage collection systems.

Extent of existing systems.Pavement "watershed." Collection
conduits.Means of disposal. Cleaning/skimmingfor oil
separation.

[ 2.9.3 Biologicaleffects of disposal.

Effects if directed to rivers, streams,wetlands. Effects if
directed to harbor, bay. Effects on fisheries,aquaculture.

[ 2.10 Industrial liquid wastes not dischargedto harbor.

Possible hazardous/toxic.
 - 18 -

[ ] 2.10.1 Storage and handling methods.

Storage sites. Containmentstructuresand materials. Proper
placement and management.De-toxificationoptions. Recycling
possibilities.

2.11 Visual impacts--location.Aesthetics. Structure.

Painting. Attempts to blend with surroundings.

3.0 AIR-RELATED IMPACTS.

[ ] 3.1 Important background information.

[ ] 3.1.1 Meteorological data.

Prevailing winds. Seasonal weather patterns. Storm tracks,
frequency and severity. Rainfall records. Wind rose data.
Identify probable downwind impact areas.

3.1.2 Background data on prevalence of present airborne substances.

Individual carrying/travel capacities. Chemical reactions
while airborne. Chemical reactions with water.

3.1.3 Identify sensitive areas.

Farmlands. Forests. Grazing lands. Residential areas. Water
reservoirs.

3.2 Fugitive emissions (see also Section 2.5).

1 3.2.1 Sources and control measures.

Dust--types, sources. Wetting and other control measures.
Enclosed conveyor loading systems for ships loading dry cargo.
Construction activities.

3 3.3 Gases, smoke, and fumes.

3.3.1 Sources, components, controls.

Industrial contributions. Ships. Residential background.
Vehicle emissions. Background from other areas. Control
measures. Regulatory limits. Health-threatening toxics.
Threats to agriculture and fisheries.

4.0 HAZARDOUSMATERIALS/CARGOES.

[ 4.1 Categories--gases,liquids, solids. Examples.

Hazardous ratings. Condition--requiredfor industrial
processes, waste products, finished products.

[ 4.1.1 Key considerations.

Identity of materials. Volumes/quantitiesusually on hand.
How stored. Location of storage areas--segregation. Shipping
and handling procedures. Bunding and other containmentpre-
cautions associatedwith bulk storage and tank farms.
Disposal of any hazardous wastes generated.
 - 19 -

[ ] 5.0 SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS.

Tribal, cultural, ethnic, historical, religious aspects likely
impacted by changes, including consequencesof modernization
and industrialization.Landscape factors integratedwith
culture, traditions,etc. How affected. Possible measures
easing transition.Preservingtraditionswith minimum loss and
disturbance. Removal of graveyards,etc.

6.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE

PROPOSED PORT OR HARBOR DEVELOPMENT AND ITS CONSTRUCTION.
Environmental. Safety. Financial. Criminal. Export-import.
Labor. Foreign consultant/labor use. Laws, regulations tied to
socio-religious traditions, etc.

[ ] 7.0 NEED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FACILITY OPERATION ENVIRONMENTAL

MONITORING.
Basis--Most Sensitive Environmental Considerations. Program
Planning. Management and Regulation Enforcement, Program
termination.
 - 20 -

PART III - TECHNICALSECTION

1.0 WATER-RELATED IMPACTS

1.1 Impacts Caused by Dredging

1.1.1 Dispersal and Settlement of Resuspended Sediments

Disruption of bottom sediments can cause a variety of environmen-

tal impacts. Problems arise in particular where sediments have been con-
taminated by chemicals, petroleum hydrocarbons and domestic wastes. Toxics
or contaminants released from the disturbed soils can go into solution or
suspension and contaminate or cause severe mortalities among important
marine and estuarine fishery resources. Particles resuspended may be rede-
posited on bottom life either smothering it or forcing it to move elsewhere
(if sufficiently mobile). Organics in the suspended material can deplete
available oxygen from the surrounding waters and temporarily create
stressed conditions for many aquatic animals. If suspended sediments are
sufficiently concentrated and persist through extended operations, light
penetration into the water column may be reduced--causing damage to light-
requiring photosynthetic algae, corals and other aquatic organisms.

Sediments become resuspended during initial excavation and during

transfer to nearby land depositories or barges if clam-shell or dragline
equipment is being used. Hydraulic dredging may introduce less suspended
material at the dredging site, but the required settling ponds and ultimate
release of partially clarified water at a point distant from the dredging
may cause impacts at that location. Sediment dispersal in the water column
can be reduced by surrounding the site with silt curtains (if currents are
not too strong) and by not permitting barge or land site overflow. Know-
ledge of the area's hydrography (tidal and river flows) prior to starting
work is essential in identifying areas most likely to be affected by the
work. Excavation of soft bottom by dredging also removes the habitat of
those forms living in the bottom sediments. If there is appreciable sedi-
mentation in the area, new bottom sediments will form and restore the habi-
tat after the work is finished.

1.1.2 Effects of Blasting

Explosive charges used to break up rock formations destroy bottom

habitats. Compression effects of the blasting often injure or temporarily
disable marine life some distance from the blasting site. In addition, the
more general but less damaging disturbance of a blasting program will be to
force mobile aquatic forms from the area until the work is completed. This
last effect is important, and plans (seasonal scheduling) therefore should
ensure that blasting does not disrupt migratory pathways of important
fisheries.

Careful attention should be paid to the proximity and condition of

nearby shorezones, bulkheads, and other structures to ensure that use of
explosives poses no threat to their integrity.
 - 21 -

1.1.3 Results of Altered Bathymetry

Deepening of channels, anchoragesand berth constructioncan alter

patterns of tidal and river flow. Should these patterns evidence high
flows, eddies, etc., hydrographic studies and modelling may be advisable to
find ways to avoid creating undesirable situations. These situationscan
range from unsafe vessel maneuvering to requirementsfor frequent dredging
or to disturbance of valuable fisheries resources. Deepening of channels
can also cause undesirablechanges in the penetration of salt wedge
conditions.

1.1.4 Effects of Changing ShorelineConfiguration

Bathymetricchanges brought about by dredging (deepeningor widen-

ing of waterways, etc.) can alter flow velocities and directions. This
possibility should be examined carefully to assure that planned changes
will not alter existing shore zone configurationsthrough erosion, accre-
tion or shoaling. Increasedwater depths can result in intensifiedwave
activity on the shorelinewith consequentincreased littoral sediment
transport resulting in acceleratederosion or accretion.

1.1.5 Loss of Bottom Habitat, Shellfisheries,Fisheries,

Fishery Food Sources

Dredging excavationof soft bottom can remove important bottom-

living aquatic life. However the bottom will readily be recolonizedby
replacementbenthic organismswithin a few seasons. As the original
habitat will probably have changed due to the dredging operations (e.g.,
sediment type, topography,water depth, current pattern etc.), the new
populationmight differ from the original one. It is advisable to
determinewhether possible current pattern changes will jeopardizeor
encourage resettlementof the originalbottom life and associated fishery
resources.

1.1.6 Altered Groundwater Flows

Subsurfacegroundwaterflows near the land-sea interface can be

altered by dredging or blasting as part of harbor/port improvement. Should
there be extensive freshwaterflow toward the estuary, the dredging could
accelerate the flow and lower watertable levels in the adjacent upland. If
freshwater flows are minimal or slow, dredging and blasting could increase
saltwater intrusion into nearby water supply aquifers. If these impacts
seem possible, it may be advisable to locate alternate freshwater sources.

1.2 Impacts of Dredged Material Disposal

The problems associatedwith the disposal of dredged materials

have become major issues in many parts of both the industrialisedand
developingworld. The topic is of such internationalconcern and subject
to continuous research that a separateAnnex to this report covers the
subject in depth. See pages 47 onwards.
 - 22 -

1.3. Construction of Piers, Breakwaters, other Waterside Structures

(New or Extension/Replacement of Existing Structures)

1.3.1 Filling or Excavation that Covers/Removes Bottom Biota or Habitat

Excavation for or filling on the bottom to support a breakwater,

pier or other waterside structure will cause loss of the displaced or
covered bottom habitat and its associated animal and plant life.

1.3.2 New Habitats Formed by Structures (Especially Pilings and

Breakwaters

Erection of piers and breakwaters usually provides an abundant

supply of new attachment surfaces, i.e., habitats for marine/estuarine
organisms. Breakwaters or other structures possessing quarried rock or
rip-rap surfaces also supply much shelter for mobile aquatic animals.
Organisms occupying these habitats (both attached and sheltered) may be
desirable or undesirable. It may be advisable to know what undesirable
species are common to the area, note the characteristics making them
undesirable, and determine their desired habitats. If the effects of their
presence pose a significant problem, alternate construction plans may be
preferable.

1.3.3 Filled Structures (Including Breakwaters)

Such structures constitute sizable masses of artificial shoreline

often projected into a bay, harbor or estuary. If tidal flows are substan-
tial, these obstructions may create major disturbances in existing tidal
flows, increasing scour in some areas and accelerating sediment deposition
in others. If there are indications that sediment deposition may be mark-
edly increased, provisions for more frequent maintenance dredging or addi-
tional structures may be required. If there is indication that sediment
deposition may be a very serious problem, opting for a piling-supported
structure permitting some measure of unobstructed flow may be preferable.

If filled structures are selected, care must be taken to determine

the effects on maintenance routines for channels and other dredged areas.
Revised navigation patterns could be required.

Somewhat different in structure and configuration but presenting

similar environmental concerns are submerged pipelines running across
shorezones (well platforms, Single Buoy Moorings (SBM) or storm/sewage
outfalls). Disturbances of the shoreline have inherent risks of initiating
serious erosion, particularly if the shoreline is subject to extensive wave
action. Protection of the pipeline(s), once in place even though buried,
may require a breakwater-like structure. Intertidal areas can be disturbed
and/or lost as a result, and extension of the protective structures into
the nearshore waters may change shorezone currents, introducing altered
areas of scour and shoaling.
 - 23 -

1.3.4 Disturbances from Pile Driving, Other Construction Activities

Pile driving and other waterfront construction activities cause

considerable noise and vibration--easily transmitted to the adjacent
waters. This disturbance may temporarily cause displacement of fisheries
and other mobile marine animals. All other things being equal, these
animals will usually return to the area once the disturbance ceases.

1.3.5 Dispersal of Suspended Sediments

Construction of piers, bulkheads, breakwaters, etc., even when not

requiring dredging, can disturb bottom sediments, increasing turbidity
adjacent to the work site. Should examination of bottom conditions and
hydrographic patterns indicate this might be a matter of concern, preventa-
tive measures to minimize impacts (Section 1.1) should be considered.
Otherwise, bottom organisms may be smothered by sediment deposition, light
penetration in the water column may be reduced, and fisheries can be tempo-
rarily displaced during the construction period.

1.3.6 Piling-Supported Structures--Effects

Structures extending into harbor waters and supported by pilings

driven into the bottom can impose several impacts on the site and vicinity.
Piling Installation will disturb the bottom beneath the proposed structure,
destroying some of the bottom habitat and temporarily displacing the mobile
bottom animals and local fisheries (see Section 1.3.4). In addition, the
structure, when completed with decking, will shade the area underneath and
possibly diminish survival by attached algae and other aquatic plants.
Presence of piling clusters will alter the habitat to some extent and may
encourage the presence of either desirable or undesirable species. Pilings
will also slow existing tidal or river flows, thus increasing sediment
deposition at some locations beneath the structure. Depending on local
conditions, this shoaling tendency may extend to nearby navigation zones,
necessitating more frequent maintenance dredging. Other nearby areas may
experience increased scouring. The nature and value of local aquatic
resources should be examined and resulting hydrographic conditions eval-
uated before beginning the project.

1.3.7 Release of Preservatives From Installed Timber Structures

Recent studies have indicated that the practice of impregnating

wood materials for protection from marine borers and rot may, when water
exchange rates are minimal, affect the local aquatic life. If water flow
exchange rates appear slow or minimal at a site, it may be advisable to
study this aspect. For example, pressure impregnated creosote piles and
other components for marine structures are banned from use by some authori-
ties.

1.4 Alteration of Harbor/Port Ship Traffic Patterns

1.4.1 Changes in Channel, Anchorage, and Turning Basin Locations

 - 24 -

If shallow conditions exist at the sites of these planned changes,

improvement dredging may be required. The impacts of dredging (improvement
and frequency of maintenance dredging) and disposal should be determined
(see Section 1.1).

1.4.2 Relocation of Navigation Markers, Moorings

Care must be taken to assure that navigation aids such as beacons,

markers, ranges, and buoys for channels and anchorages are precisely
located and their visibility and marking appropriate with local and the
International Association of Lighthouse Authorities Maritime Buoyage
Systems. If the port vessel traffic is or will be considerable, Vessel
Traffic Systems (VTS) will be required and possibly separate incoming and
outgoing channels may be required - (lane separation schemes).

1.4.3 Addition of new Channels, Anchorages, Turning Basins Requiring

Improvement Dredging

See Section 1.1 for range of dredging and dredged material

disposal impacts.

1.4.4 Improved Procedures for Vessel Traffic Control

If improved or expanded port and harbor facilities will lead to

either or both increased ship traffic and use by larger vessels, improved
vessel traffic control may be necessary to ensure safe passage and minimize
the possibility of collision - resulting in spills--as well as fires,
explosions, and loss of life.

It should be determined whether ships using the port area will be

required to have special equipment for positioning and safe navigation,
i.e., radar, LORAN-C/DECCA/GPS and ARPA collision avoidance/intercept
systems. Special shore-based radar and/or radar reflectors may be desir-
able. Updated pilot qualification or additional training may be necessary.

1.4.5 Increased Provision for Vessel Handling and Servicing

It must be determined whether increased ship traffic/port use will

require additional tugs, lighters, and mooring and pilot boats. It should
also be determined whether there is a need for ship repair facilities.

1.5 Ship Discharges -- Oily Ballast, Bilge Water; Sewage

1.5.1 Promulgation of Regulations

Critical factors in controlling discharges of pollutants in a port

or harbor are promulgation of realistic enforceable regulations. Such
regulations should establish permissible limits for discharges and include
adequate deterrent penalties. The enforcement of these regulations in a
port or harbor will be the single most effective way of maintaining a clean
and biologically productive environment.
 - 25 -

The most important instrumentfor preventingpollution from marine

transportationis the InternationalConvention for the Preventionof Pollu-
tion from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto
(MARPOL 73/78), which controls discharge of harmful substances into the sea
from ships. MARPOL 73178 consists of five Annexes as follows:

Annex I Oil - Ships are prohibited to discharge oil or oily

water, such as dirty ballast water and oily bilge
water containing more than 15 ppm of oil, within 12
miles of land. Other conditions apply to discharges
outside 12 mile limits.

Annex II Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk - chemicals are

evaluated for the environmental hazard they may cause
if discharged into the sea (Categories A,B,C and D).
Discharge into the sea of the most harmful chemicals
(Category A) is prohibited and tank washings and other
residues of less harmful substances (Categories B,C
and D) may only be discharged under certain condi-
tions, e.g., total quantity, distance from the shore,
depth of water, prescribed depending on the hazards.
There are substances, e.g., water, wine, acetone,
ethyl alcohol, for which no restrictions apply.

Annex III Harmful substances in packaged form - this is princi-

pally oriented towards prevention of pollution by
regulating packaging, marking and labelling and
stowage.

Annex IV Sewage - It is prohibited to discharge ship-generated

sewage unless it is treated with an approved sewage
treatment plant or at a certain distance from land.

Annex V Garbage - Produced on board a ship, food waste, dunn-

age, packaging, etc., must be kept on board and dis-
charged either ashore or into the sea under certain
conditions, such as the distance from land. Discharge
of all plastics is prohibited.

These Annexes of MARPOL 73/78 are all in force.3 Under Annex I,

ports are obliged to provide facilities to receive oily waste and oily
water from the ships using the port. The Guidelines for the Provision of
Adequate Facilities in Ports, Part I, Oily Wastes, published by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1976 provides Guidelines for
determining the volume of oily wastes generated on different types of ships
and the capacity of reception facilities required to handle these volumes.

3/ As of January 10, 1990, the status of ratification by countries of

MARPOL 73/78 was reported by IMO to be: Annexes I and II - 57
countries (85.25Z); Annex III - 38 countries (48.06%); Annex IV - 33
countries (39.75Z); and Annex V - 41 countries (60.67%). Annex IV was
the last to enter into force.
 - 26 -

Similarly under Annex II, the ports are required to provide facil-
ities to receive tank washings of Category A and highly viscous or solidi-
fying Category B and C noxious liquid substances that are imported in bulk
at the port. The reception facility may also receive tank washings con-
taining other products; however, this is a commercial exercise. Part II,
Residues and Mixtures containing Noxious Liquid Substances (1986 edition),
of the above-mentioned Guidelines discusses the need for reception facili-
ties for noxious liquid substances.

Sewage and garbage, whether they are discharged from a ship or

from land, are a major source of pollution in ports and their environs.
Legislative and Administrative measures should be taken to prohibit
discharge of sewage and garbage into the waters of the port. Prohibition
of discharge of such waste from ships requires provision of suitable
reception facilities for these wastes. Part III - Sewage and Part IV -
Garbage (1978 edition) of the aforementioned Guidelines provides a basis
for determining the adequacy of facilities required by individual ports for
the reception of sewage and garbage from ships.

An important source of harbor pollution is the discharge of oily

ballast and oily bilge water by vessels using the port. As previously
mentioned, implementation of the MARPOL 73/78 requirements limits the oil
content of such discharges to less than 15 parts per million (ppm) in the
port or its environs. Ships will generate oily mixtures during their
normal operations and the following four categories have been identified:

1. Oily ballast water from cargo tanks of oil tankers

2. Tank washings from oil tankers
3. Oily bilge wastes from machinery spaces of all ships
4. Oily residues from purification of fuel and lubricating oils,
used lubricating oils and liquid and solid sludges from the
cargo tanks of oil tankers.

To determine the capacity and type of reception facility required

in a port a number of parameters must be considered such as ship design and
type of propulsion machinery and operating routes, including reception
facilities in ports previously visited. A number of oil loading ports have
provided reception facilities for oily ballast and tank washings from oil
tankers where the oily mixtures are treated to separate the oil from the
water. The treated water should contain less than 15 ppm of oil when dis-
charged into the harbor waters; however many administrations now require
that the oil content must be less than 5 ppm.

The collection and treatment of machinery space residue does not

normally involve large quantities but the eventual disposal of these resi-
dues presents a number of technical problems that are currently being
studied under a joint IMO/INTERTANKO project. Oily sludges generated from
cleaning of oil cargo tanks also present some problems in final disposal;
however, the increased application of Crude Oil Washing by tanker operators
should result in a significant reduction in quantities of oily sludge
generated.
 - 27 -

Smaller vessels such as tugs, pilot boats and other port craft are
not normally fitted with oily water separating or filtering systems and
port authorities should make facilities available to periodically remove
oily bilge water from these vessels.

A further consideration is vessels that anchor in the port

approaches either awaiting orders or a berth. A floating reception facil-
ity such as a towed or self propelled barge should be available to receive
oily wastes and garbage.

1.5.2 Environmental Sensitivity to Discharges from Ships

Discharges and spills from ships or shore facilities can result in

the introduction of contaminants into the harbor waters. These discharges
can be harmful to marine or estuarine life and also render fish and shell-
fish unfit for human consumption. Many ports have relatively poor water
exchange with the result that pollutants tend to have long residence times
in the port environment.

Untreated sewage discharges can pose serious threats to the local

population of the transmission of diseases and can also result in degrada-
tion of water quality in a port.

Discharge of garbage into the harbor waters will result in un-

sightly conditions on the shoreline owing to accumulation of non-biodegrad-
able materials such as plastics, glass and metal containers. Plastic bags
and sheets can block cooling water intakes or foul propellers of vessels
and small craft using the port.

1.5.3 Development of Shore Facilities for Receiving Ship Generated

Sewage and Garbage

Every effort should be made to prevent discharges of untreated

sewage from ships. Most vessels are equipped with sewage treatment plants
or holding tanks as many administrations do not permit untreated sewage
discharges in ports. Connections should be available to permit pumping of
sanitary wastes into a special or municipal sewage treatment system.
Smaller vessels used for harbor services should be equipped with recycling
or chemical toilets or holding tanks that can be discharged to shore facil-
ities.

A collection and disposal system for ship generated garbage should

be established for ships alongside and at anchor. Closable skips can be
provided at the berths and a towed or self propelled barge fitted with
skips can be used to collect garbage from ships at anchor. Disposal of the
garbage is subject to local customs and practice but for public health
reasons many administrations will not permit garbage from foreign vessels
to be taken outside the port and incinerators are used by the port to dis-
pose of ship generated garbage.
 - 28 -

1.5.4 Effects of Antifouling Paints

By their nature antifouling paints are inimical to aquatic life.

They either prevent estuarine and marine organisms from attaching to sub-
merged surfaces or kill them should they succeed in becoming attached-
-causing them to relinquish their grip and fall off. Severe damage to
aquatic life has been caused by antifouling paints containing organic tin
compounds - eg tributyl tin.

Careless application of antifoulants can introduce significant

concentrations into nearby waters, and marine life can be seriously harmed.
In some situations, removal of old antifoulants and reapplication can also
introduce harmful substances to the water. In this latter instance, the
greater harm will likely be to bottom-dwelling organisms directly beneath
the operations area (a floating drydock, for example) where the mixture of
abrasive and old paint may fall directly into the surrounding waters.
Concern for effects of antifoulants must be an important focus when identi-
fying possible locations for ship repair and maintenance, as well as small
craft harbors. These facilities should not be located where there will be
a threat to local fishery or shellfish resources. It is important to iden-
tify the kinds of antifoulants to be employed at a ship repair/maintenance
facility. Concern about the poison potential of the tin-based antifoulants
has caused their use to be regulated or banned in many countries particu-
larly where vessels are berthed or anchored in shallow water areas.

1.6 Spills: Detection and Clean-up of Spills

1.6.1 Types of Spills

Operational spillages from vessels in ports can be prevented by

regulations supported by an effective enforcement program and provision of
adequate reception facilities for ship generated wastes. Accidental spills
can and do occur owing to marine casualties (collisions, groundings, fires,
etc.), failure of equipment (pipelines, hoses, flanges, etc.) or improper
operating procedures during cargo transfer or bunkering. Such spills can
involve crude oils, refined products or residual fuels, noxious liquid
substances and harmful substances in packaged form. The more volatile oils
are generally less harmful to the environment because they rapidly evapo-
rate but they can present the hazard of fire or explosion. The more
viscous oils remain on the water surface where they will move under the
influence of wind and current. Chemical spills can result in the introduc-
tion of water soluble toxic substances into the marine environment, which
can have a deleterious effect upon marine organisms. Some chemicals - even
in low concentrations - can taint fish thus reducing its marketability.
Those substances that sink can smother benthic species and eventual
recovery is difficult.

1.6.2 Resources at Risk

Identification of areas within the port that are sensitive to

spillages should be a priority. Wherever feasible, oil and chemical hand-
ling facilities should be located as far away as possible from environmen-
 - 29 -

tally sensitive areas such as mangroves, corals, aquaculture projects and

amenity beaches. In planning response operations these areas should be
given first priority. Shore-based industrial installations using sea water
for cooling or processing should also be clearly identified together with
the location of their water intakes and discharges.

1.6.3 Spill Clean-Up Measures

A marine emergency contingency plan should be prepared for the

port clearly outlining authority and responsibility for dealing with such
incidents. Guidance can be found in the IMO Manual on Oil Pollution -
Section II - Contingency Planning. Reporting and alerting mechanisms must
be established to ensure that any spillage is promptly reported to the Port
Authorities and those personnel involved are informed in order that they
may take appropriate action.

Specialized oil spill response equipment should be available in

the port to deal with small to medium spillages. This equipment may
include containment booms, recovery devices, oil recovery or dispersant
application vessels.

The equipment operators must be trained in deployment of the

equipment, and the contingency plan regularly exercised to test reporting
and alerting procedures. On a less frequent basis there should be deploy-
ment of the specialized spill response equipment.

1.6.4 Dry Cargo Releases

Most such releases are likely to be wind-blown particulates from

vessels loading or offloading or from waterfront stockpiles. If study
indicates that particularly frequent dust-release events are likely and
that harmful effects may result, there should be engineering/planning to
determine the feasibility of requiring enclosed storage or loading/offload-
ing facilities. Smoke effects may also involve particulates--as discussed
in Section 2.5.2.

1.6.5. Hazardous Cargoes

This topic is treated separately in Section 4.0.

1.7 Waterfront Industry Discharges--Sanitary and non-Sanitary

1.7.1 Sanitary Wastes

Treated and untreated sanitary wastes may be discharged to harbor/

estuary waters from waterfront industries. It is important to determine
the daily volume of these wastes and the sources. If project-proposed
activities will be the major source, project planning must include provi-
sions for treating and handling the wastes. There must also be provisions
for meeting required BOD (biological oxygen demand) and chemical limita-
tions. If the releases are primarily not derived from project operations,
the question of treatment and disposal should nevertheless be addressed--in
 - 30 -

terms of the determined water quality stipulations of the harbor or

estuary.

1.7.1.1 Sanitary Treatment Facilities

As part of project planning, existing or proposed waste water

treatment facilities should be evaluated regarding capacity and efficiency.
Any special contaminants should be identified (expected volumes, frequency
of discharge, toxicities). There should also be a clear indication whether
the contaminants will be attributable to project activities or not.
Treatment/extraction procedures that are available or planned must also be
described. Also specify water quality standards that must (should) be met.
The impact of handling waste water from vessels must also be addressed.

1.7.1.2 Non-Sanitary Wastes

Non-sanitary wastes can consist of industrial discharges from a

variety of manufacturing or refining processes released to the receiving
waters of a bay or harbor. Prior to project planning it is necessary to
know the nature, locations and volumes of existing discharges. Then deter-
mine as accurately as possible their effect upon and combined impact with
any aquatic effects attributable to the proposed project. It is imperative
that any toxic or hazardous substances be identified and their impacts on
receiving water quality and resident aquatic life be determined. Once
these aspects are investigated, a similar assessment must be directed at
the proposed project. Ultimately, measures should be taken, either in
design engineering or in setting operational guidelines, to ensure that the
project makes no appreciable additional contribution to the existing
aquatic contaminant load.

1.7.2.1 Discharge/Treatment Procedures

Existing industrial operations constituting sources of contaminat-

ing discharge should be examined carefully. If treatment processes are
involved, their capacities and efficiencies should be evaluated and docu-
mented. Many industrial discharges actually incorporate dissolved or sus-
pended materials of value. Installation of recovery processes can retrieve
metals and other substances, and, in the process, significantly reduce the
potential for degrading the quality of the receiving waters. In assessing
the effectiveness of in-place systems, aspects requiring critical examina-
tion include the extent and effectiveness of settling ponds, the integrity
of piping systems, proximity to residential areas or other industries, and
--most important--the nature and volume of any residuals reaching harbor
waters. Testing may be advisable to determine whether existing discharge
limitations are being met, and, no less important, the extent to which
proposed project operations may alter the impact of existing discharges.
To the extent these are judged substantial, mitigation measures (redirec-
tion of discharges, component recycling, relocation of discharges, etc.)
should be implemented with project plans.
 - 31 -

7.2.2 Discharges Reaching Harbor/River Waters

Industrial discharges frequently take place upstream of ports and

harbors in fresh water. When these discharges meet saline water serious
detrimental effects on both water quality and the residual plant and
aquatic life can occur. Some chemicals and other substances, upon contact
with even dilute salt water, undergo chemical change and tend to
precipitate and settle on the bottom. Accumulations can create an abiotic
zone where bottom-dwelling or attached plants and animals will be unable to
survive. The same effect will also take place where discharges are made
directly into salt water conditions. Such effects, though serious, will
often be limited in area. Other substances will remain in solution or
suspension and have broader influences. As an example, the discharges
associated with the paper industry can be particularly damaging, increasing
turbidity, and - perhaps most important - reducing dissolved oxygen levels
below those required for the support of aquatic life. Under the project
action to control the discharges based on the guidelines of the Montreal
Convention on Land Based Sources of Pollution should be put into effect if
possible. One of the difficulties which is difficult to combat occurs when
the sources of the discharge is upstream but in another country.

1.7.2.3 Possible Needed Retention and Treatment Systems

If the proposed project involves industrial discharges to the bay,

harbor or estuary, the full range of treatment and recycling processes
should be evaluated. System feasibility based on local conditions is an
important consideration, but, on balance, the most important focus should
be on the environmental impact to the receiving waters.

1.7.2.4 Non-Sanitary Spillage from Non-Ship Activities

In addition to regular or periodic industrial discharges, atten-

tion must also be directed toward the possibility that waterfront indus-
trial activities will sometimes result in accidental spills into harbor
waters. One of the most common of these will be the discharge of hydraulic
oils due to mechanical leaks and hose failures. Although volume per acci-
dent may be relatively small (typically about 60 gallons), the frequency of
events, particularly in those areas where machinery maintenance is poor,
may lead to this being a major cause of harbor water pollution. The extent
to which it can occur as part of project construction and operation should
be estimated and efforts made to reduce its frequency. In addition, emer-
gency routines should be implemented as part of project plans to prevent
such events from affecting harbor waters.

1.7.2.5 Non-Sanitary Discharges/Releases from Ship Repair

The impact of careless antifouling paint use has been discussed

(Section 1.5.4). Other materials perhaps less toxic or hazardous but still
harmful to the aquatic environment may be discharged into the water adja-
cent to ship repair yards. Paints and general ship refuse are concerns as
well. Drainage provision should include measures to prevent uncontrolled
 - 32 -

passage to the harbor or estuary waters. Also, operating regulations must

be in place to discourage careless handling of materials.

1.7.3 Heated Process Water Discharges

A variety of waterfront industrial processes require large volumes

of cooling water--usually taken from the nearby bay or harbor and then
returned with a heat load to the same bay or harbor. The receiving waters
thus become an intermediate heat sink for the industrial activity generat-
ing the waste heat. Prominent examples of operations having heated water
discharges are electric generating plants, LNG condensation facilities, and
high temperature ore refining operations. The release of large volumes of
heated water, particularly into a semi-enclosed bay or harbor, can markedly
change the aquatic biological character of the area if care is not taken to
ensure adequate mixing and ultimate removal to the open ocean. Important
information required to make decisions in this regard are location of valu-
able fisheries and other estuarine resources, the volume of heated water
discharged per unit time, the structural layout of the discharge--surface,
subsurface multi-port diffuser, etc., bathymetry of the harbor/bay, and
hydrographic conditions. The last, particularly important, must include
estimates of the embayment tidal prism (volume of water exchanged per tidal
cycle), current patterns, and ambient natural heat load of the receiving
waters.

In colder climates heated water discharges may increase the pro-

ductivity and diversity of estuarine and marine life. Aquaculture opera-
tions can benefit from thermal discharges if no harmful substances are
present in the discharge. In warmer places this growth advantage is
usually lost, and water temperatures may rise to lethal levels for many
organisms. Engineering considerations should include description of the
expected mixing zone (zone adjacent to the discharge where heated water and
harbor water mix at the moment of release--area of the highest tempera-
ture). The discharge system should be designed and located to ensure that
the mixing zone does not prevent passage of migratory fisheries.

1.7.4 Brine from Desalinization Plants

Arid lands frequently produce potable water supplies via desalini-

zation plants located, of necessity, along seacoasts or harbor waterfronts.
The extracted salts are often returned to the sea as highly concentrated
brines. These are subsequently diluted in the receiving waters. Brines
are generally heavier than the receiving waters and sink to the bottom
largely unmixed and undiluted. If salt concentrations are very high,
bottom life can be harmed--particularly if the area is not usually subject-
ed to the full salinity of the open ocean.

Desalinization plant location and design will call for maximum

separation of intake and discharge to prevent recirculation of the highly
saline discharge. Care must be exercised to ensure that the discharge does
not impact directly on any fisheries, shellfisheries, or aquaculture opera-
tions. Also, if at all possible, the discharge should take advantage of
 - 33 -

prevailing currents and harbor tidal flows to maximize dilution and speed
removal to the open ocean. The hydrographicconsiderationsbasic to hand-
ling heated water dischargesalso pertain here: tidal exchange, tidal
prism, mixing zone, etc.

2.0 LAND-RELATEDIMPACTS

2.1 Excavation for Fill (Rock or Aggregate)

2.1.1 Loss of Upland Vegetation

Creation of quarries and borrow pits require removal of topsoil

and other near-surfacecover, making the land unavailable for agriculture,
residence,recreation,grazing, etc., and exposing the soils and rock
beneath to the action of sun, weather, wind, etc. Plans to establish
sources of sand, gravel or rock must, of course, be directed at locations
having the desired resource. Nevertheless,the value of lands marked for
destructionmust be considered,particularlywhen alternativesites for
constructionmaterials are available. Land functions lost include use as
crop or grazing land, loss of existing or potential residential areas, loss
of timber--if tree covered, or windbreak capabilities,and loss of erosion-
prevention capabilities--resulting in greater possibility of cave-ins,
wind-driven dust, and mudslides. The loss of the rainfall retention cap-
ability of the topsoil and its vegetation increases the rapidness and
volume of runoff, thus producing greater potential for flooding at lower
elevations in the watershed. Licences or permits for this type of activity
must include provisionsand funding to ensure that the lands are adequately
restored to acceptable standards after the borrowing operationsare
terminated.

2.1.2 Damage from Shoreline Sand/GravelExcavation

Should excavation for sand and gravel be planned in a shoreline

zone possessingbeaches and sand dunes, alternate sources should be sought
if possible. Removal of sands and gravels from the shorezoneor dune areas
immediatelyadjacent to the shore can result in destabilizationof the
entire shorefront,leading to erosion and reshaping of the entire shoreline
region, and, if the shore is subject to considerablewind forces, possible
accelerationof dune migrations--towardthe shore and ultimate destruction
or inland to bury desirablevegetated lands. Persistenceof onshore winds
can result in increased sandstorm severitywith resulting degradationof
impacted upland areas.

2.1.3 Dust (FugitiveEmissions)

Dust sources can include not only unvegetated areas open to

weathering and wind but also drilling operationsin quarries and truck
traffic hauling from excavationsites. Constructionequipment on site can
also be a source of dust. In assessing the severity of any expected envi-
ronmental impacts, special attention must be directed at prevailingwind
directions and velocities and areas most likely to be affected--farmlands,
 - 34 -

residential areas, etc. If the impacts are judged significant, dust

suppression and control measures should be incorporated into project plans.

2.1.4 Blasting and Its Effects

The use of explosive charges to break up rock (or abandoned con-

crete structures) can incur severe effects leading to critical environmen-
tal impacts. Most important, it is essential that blasting areas be
cleared of workers and onlookers at the time demolition charges are set
off. If there is risk to workmen or nearby populated areas, shock-absorb-
ing "mattresses" should be placed over the areas involved.

When blasting is conducted in rock formations near aquifers from

which water supplies are drawn, there should be precautions to prevent as
much as possible the fracturing of rock in such a way that subsequent
drainage might lower the water table in nearby wellfields. Special seismic
testing and a series of test wells may be advisable before beginning the
blasting. Surface effects of blasting may also include disturbance of
livestock in nearby areas.

2.1.5 Requirements for Land Restoration

Any project incorporating substantial disturbance of land areas

shouLd include in its planning stages a survey of the areas earmarked for
disruption to describe their environmental nature and value. From this
knowledge there can be developed, reflecting the anticipated extent and
type of disturbance and degradation, a plan for land restoration once the
rock or sand and gravel have been removed. This does not mean that resto-
ration must re-create the original environment. It is unlikely that that
would be possible. Instead, planning should focus on using the ultimate
topography and other characteristics of the excavations to the best advan-
tage. Thus, restoration may involve changing the area into something quite
different than its original state, but, nevertheless, much improved over
its state if otherwise simply abandoned.

2.2 Wetland Damage and Filling

Marshes, swamps and other low watery areas, collectively called

wetlands, often occur in abundance along shorelines. Their availability
and their level elevation make them prime targets for filling to easily
produce large spaces for expansion of industry, etc.

2.2.1 Ecological Value of Wetlands

Extensive research in many parts of the world over many decades

has documented the unquestionable ecological value of wetlands. They serve
as flood storage reservoirs and groundwater recharge areas. They have very
high productivity rates providing food for a large variety of animal resi-
dents and for many fisheries and invertebrates through their immense
volumes of organic outflow. Waterfowl feed, nest, and find shelter in
them. To remove wetlands is to increase the frequency and severity of
 - 35 -

floods, lower water tables and reduce the diversity and numerical abundance
of plants and animals in the area.

Wetlands obviously vary in their nature and plantlanimal composi-

tion. Many are important food sources for man or his domestic animals-
-although not cultivated in the usual sense. Irrigation systems may draw
their water in whole or part from wetlands. Their destruction, then, is a
matter of great concern and, in the long run, can only degrade the area
involved.

2.2.2 Floodplain Functions

Wetlands serve as important flood storage areas, allowing immense

volumes of water to be held and then released slowly to emptying streams.
Estuarine or coastal wetlands serve a similar function by allowing storm-
driven tidal inflows to overspread large areas without damage or harm to
human habitation. Also, freshwater wetlands can serve as important reser-
voirs for irrigation systems.

2.2.3 Watershed/Groundwater Source Quality

Also as noted, wetlands can be important groundwater recharge

areas--if normally filled with freshwater. In some situations wetlands are
actually groundwater discharge areas--usually when definite surface inflows
are not readily detectable. In the latter instance, the wetlands may be
the source of important streams critical to the lives of downstream inhabi-
tants. The "absorbing" nature of wetlands, when performing as a stream
source, serves as a natural regulator of downstream flow rates, preventing
flash floods and washouts.

2.2.4 Runoff (longterm) from Developed Areas

(Including Ports and Harbor Facilities)

Because of their relatively low elevation, wetlands are usually

receiving basins for surface runoff from surrounding uplands. If indus-
trialized, residential or otherwise altered areas are located nearby, they,
too, will contribute to the runoff accumulation in a wetland. The result
can be a contaminant build-up inasmuch as wetlands tend to collect and hold
substances introduced by entering waters. By the same token, waters leav-
ing a wetland by outflowing streams will tend to be cleaner than those
contaminant-bearing flows that entered. Wetlands, therefore, become
"sinks" for contaminants, and over time may show a appreciable background
build-up of various compounds, metallic ions and other substances. Should
project plans call for increased runoff to a wetland, determination of
background levels for any suspected contaminants will be advisable. Then
background data should be examined and compared with the projected inflow
of contaminants expected to be generated by the project to assess the prob-
ability of any increases being harmful to the wetland and reducing its
functional value.
 - 36 -

2.3 Loss of Usable Uplands to Expanding Waterfront/Industrial Areas

2.3.1 Types of Land Areas Likely Lost to Industrial or Waterfront Use

In addition to wetlands being filled to provide additional indus-

trial or waterfront space, various other types of landforms and land uses
(i.e., farmlands, croplands, grazing lands, residential areas, market
centers, and commercial properties) can be eliminated by expanding water-
front and industrial activities. Loss of each type can incur considerable
environmental impact. The extent and magnitude of these impacts depends on
the unique value of each area type and the extent to which other locations
can supply suitable replacement by involuntary resettlement of inhabitants
and their activities.

2.3.2 Extent to Which Relocation Compensates for Lost Land Use

The World Bank now has systematic and detailed policy designed to
ensure successful resettlement. The two foundations of this policy first
ensure that the displaced people shall be preferably better off and
certainly no worse off after relocation. Second, the planning and
financing of resettlement is an integral part of the project.

Preliminary planning must identify areas to be utilized in indus-

trial and waterfront expansion or development and must indicate the extent
to which these land-use conversions will force population resettlement.
Although involuntary resettlement must be viewed as an environmental
impact, it is important to realize that attempts to attach values to land-
use losses and to the disruption associated with relocation may meet with
little success because of emotional attachments to lands and surroundings.
Every attempt at minimizing such moves and mitigating their impacts must be
carried through with great sincerity and include extensive local government
and community involvement. There must be a thorough examination of all
associated community needs at any relocation site--water, sewer, electri-
city, roads, fuels, social services and schools are typical examples of
important concerns. Involuntary resettlement must include careful conside-
ration of the need for employment opportunities. World Bank Technical
Paper No.80 of May 1988 "Involuntary Resettlement in Development Projects"
will provide guidance on how to approach these issues.

2.4 Noise from Port and Harborside Industry

2.4.1 Planning for Possible Strategic Location of Noise Sources

Initial study must identify existing noise sources, their charac-

ter, and their daily cycles. Then predictions must be prepared detailing
anticipated additional noise levels attributable to the project. If sub-
stantial increases seem possible, plans to reduce noise impacts may lead to
designating high-noise areas removed from other less noisy sites and from
residential locations. Noise suppression measures may be advisable employ-
ing muffled equipment, etc. There should also be a determination of the
need for controlling and suppressing construction noise--for example, pile-
 - 37 _

driving (constructionphase only) and use of compressors and drilling

machinery.

2.5 Effects of Dust and Other Airborne Emissions

2.5.1 Dust and Other Non-CombustionParticulates

Dust sources and resulting impacts have been reviewed previously

(Sections1.6.4, 2.1.3). Sources include various industrialoperations
(ore crushing, for example), constructionactivities,outdoor storage of
raw materials and other particulates (rangingfrom coal and limestone to
grain and wheat storage, for example). Determinationof possible environ-
mental impacts must focus on source location, prevailingwinds (direction
and average/minimumspeeds and duration) and areas most likely affected.
Reduction or prevention of impacts can employ vegetation screening,use of
vegetationalor structuralwindbreaks and covering or enclosure. Wetting
techniquesand use of calcium chloride can reduce construction-caused
dusts.

2.5.2 Smoke and Other CombustionProducts

Although having properties and characteristicsin common with dust

and dust problems, smoke and other airborne combustionproducts can present
more serious problems primarily because of the greater potential for dis-
tributing toxic or hazardous substancesand for the generally greater capa-
city for dispersal. This topic is treated more fully in Section 3.3.

2.6 Traffic Burden ProLections

2.6.1 Existing Traffic Loads

If port or harbor expansion or upgradingwill result in more vehi-

cular traffic, the increases and their impacts must be evaluated. Back-
ground data required, if available,should include an up-to-date delinea-
tion of the existing roadway network with indicationof any expansion or
improvementeither underway or in the planning stage, quantificationof
present traffic loads and their periodicity,accident data with indication
of severity (casualtylosses, deaths and injuries), and any special charac-
teristics of traffic (trucks,taxis, buses--frequency,routes, etc.).

2.6.2 Projected Traffic Increases

Once background data has been accumulatedand analyzed,project

increases can be integrated into the study. Important aspects will be the
nature of the increases (workerscommuting,trucks, tractor-trailers,heavy
loads, Hazardous Cargoes (HC), etc. general commercial traffic), the nature
and patterns of congestion,and routes likely to carry the expanded burden.
With these projections developed,preliminaryplans should be developed for
improved roads and highways, new bypass routes to serve the additional
traffic, and needs for traffic control. Additional problems include over-
nighting of trucks and drivers, trucks waiting for port access, damage by
 - 38 -

trucks to roadways, and spillages from trucks. An important factor in

developing these requirements is an examination of the secondary impacts-
-traffic increases not directly attributable to the project but expansion
of residential, market and commercial areas due to the enlarged industrial
employment base.

2.7 Handling and Disposal of Solid Shore Generated Wastes

2.7.1 Important Sources

Solid wastes ranging from general rubbish and garbage to discarded

industrial materials and construction rubble pose serious disposal problems
for even smaller port and harbor communities. Important sources include
residential and commercial areas; industrial plants; berths, cargo handling
areas and warehouses; and, berthed and anchored vessels.

2.7.2 Means of Transport/Transfer

Accurate figures for existing solid waste volumes should be

obtained. Then projections can be developed for anticipated increases
(major categories may be useful, as well). It must be determined what
means, if any, are presently used for transporting solid wastes to the
disposal site. Integration of present volumes and waste categories with
projected increases will indicate whether transport system capacity must be
expanded or upgraded. Important aspects include means of transferring
solid waste from ship to shore-based receiving sites (bins or simply
loading/unloading areas), vehicles used to collect and haul to disposal
sites, use of compactors, and regional collecting facilities.

2.7.3 Disposal Methods

Solid wastes may undergo sorting for extraction of recyclable

materials or may be incinerated or deposited in a landfill area.

2.7.4 Incineration

Burning of combustionable solid wastes is most effective if prior

sorting removes materials suitable for recycling. Such a process may also
remove some of the materials that are not burnable. There is well-develop-
ed technology for incineration of solid wastes with process refinement
continuing. From the viewpoint of environmental impact, several key issues
should be addressed: siting--a location distant from residential and agri-
cultural areas, where there is sufficient space for stockpiling solid
wastes if the load exceeds plant capacity (or the plant breaks down); the
nature of combustion emissions (toxics, gases, smoke, scrubbers--available
or not?); facilities for handling and temporarily storing fly ash and
bottom ash. Electricity generation as a byproduct may be possible if
energy needs and waste volumes are sufficient.
 - 39 -

2.7.3.2 Landfills

The term 'landfill"is in some instances simply a euphemism for

"dump", or well-removed location, of no apparenthuman use, where every-
thing no longer desired is simply deposited. This is not the concept of a
landfill. A landfill is a carefully selected site where solid wastes are
deposited in a carefully controlledmanner and then covered with acceptably
clean soils. Ultimately, all or a specifiedportion or cell of a landfill
is declared full, and permanent soil cover is laid over it and vegetation
planted on it.

From the environmentalviewpoint,key considerationscenter on

determining that water passing down through the landfill and leachingout
contaminantsdoes not enter important aquifers used by neighboring communi-
ties. In addition, daily and final cover prevent winds from removing
recently deposited lighter materials and also make the site less accessible
to birds and rodents. Rainfall/surfacerunoff is also a concern, and
design parameters and topographicfeatures should be employed to control
and direct the flows so that serious impacts are avoided. In general,
solid wastes for landfill are not sorted for recycling. All categoriesof
general refuse are accepted. Incinerationash from solid waste burning (if
both alternatives for disposal are employed) and other furnace operations
are also deposited thereon (and sometimesused as daily cover).

2.8 Runoff from Raw Material Storage

Many raw materials,particularlyfrom mining operations, are,

because of their large volumes, stored in exposed situationswhile awaiting
processing or loading onto ships.

2.8.1 Nature of Materials

Typical examples of bulk materials frequently stored outdoors

include timber--cutor uncut, salt, coal, sulfur, feldspar,unrefined ores,
and refined ore concentrates. Depending on their nature and on prevailing
local weather conditionsthese storage areas can be sources of contaminants
or toxic releases.

2.8.2 Exposure Effects

Factors in determiningthe environmentalimpacts attributableto

exposure and weathering are varied but include length of exposure, nature
of material, weather conditions,rainfall,wind persistenceand direction,
sun exposure, and handling procedures. The identificationof impacts must
incorporateplans for controllingall runoff from the stored materials and
the surrounding area (dikes, drains, and perhaps retention/evaporation/
neutralizationponds), provisions for protectingworkers handling the mate-
rial, measures to prevent leaching into the groundwater (imperviousbase
required?)and controlling drainage to adjacent harbor waters. If serious
concerns regardingweather effects persist, methods for covering the
material may be required.
 - 40 -

2.9 Waterfront Drainage

All too often, runoff from waterfront areas is allowed to flow

unimpeded into the harbor or estuary. Left unchecked, serious contamina-
tion and water quality degradation can result.

2.9.1 Drainage Components

The possible range of contaminants reaching harbor waters is very

broad--the potential for raw material storage drainage in Section 2.8.2
provides some insight. However, the principal constituents are oils,
diesel fuels, gasoline and hydraulic oils--the last being the most common
and perhaps the single largest contributor in volumes.

2.9.2 Drainage Collection Systems

To the extent possible, direct drainage from wharves and piers and
adjacent surfaces to harbor waters should be prevented. Areas should be
paved and sloped to direct flows to catch basins--not over the edge of
piers. Catch basin systems should be blind (requiring periodic pumping
out) or be connected to collection systems directing flows to a central
location where separation of oils and water can be accomplished. The
cleaned waters then can be released to the harbor upon meeting standard
discharge limits for residual release concentrations (see Section 1.7).

2.9.3 Biological Effects of Disposal

Discharge of untreated, uncleaned waterfront drainage to harbor

waters can have serious effects on aquatic life. If directed to nearby
wetlands, these materials can easily transform natural, viable areas into
lifeless wastelands having little value in the natural environment or to
neighboring residents. If directed to streams and rivers above tidal
influence and in sufficient quantities, biological life in the waterways
may essentially be eliminated. Should a stream or river be a source for
municipal water supplies below the release point, the water might become
unusable, and the source would have to be abandoned. Bay, harbors and
tidal portions of rivers (estuaries) have a greater dilution potential, and
waterfront discharges may not appear to be as serious. Nevertheless, per-
sistent chronic discharges will reduce fishery, shellfishery and aquatic
plant life diversity and seriously reduce water quality. Aquaculture ope-
rations would probably no longer be possible. The ease with which water-
front drainage discharges can be prevented make this one of the most readi-
ly available steps to be taken in a harbor/river/estuary clean-up program.

2.10 Industrial Liquid Wastes not Discharged to Harbor

Liquid industrial wastes--for example, wash solutions from elec-

troplating operations--must not be released to harbor, river, or ocean
waters, but rather collected and treated to remove or neutralize toxic or
hazardous chemicals therein.
 - 41 -

2.10.1 Storage and HandlingMethods

Environmentalplanning for ports and harbors must carefully

address the matter of liquid industrialwastes if it is determinedthat
they will be present. Volumes and flow rates must be predicted, sources
and processes identifiedand engineeringplans developed for their control,
storage and ultimate disposal. Properly designed transfer systems and
storage facilitiesmust incorporatehigh grade materials to ensure the
integrity of all containment structures. Emergency control apparatusmust
be incorporatedinto all units, and workmen must be thoroughlytrained in
the use of the systems. Plant operationsmust include, along with engi-
neering and construction,appropriatetechniquesfor de-toxifyingor neu-
tralizing the solutions,and recycling operationswhere feasible. Finally,
there must be assurance that ultimate disposalproducts carry minimum risk
of harming the natural environment or threateningthe public health.

2.11 Visual Impacts

To the maximum extent possible and in conformancewith local cond-

itions and public concerns, measures should be taken during the project
design stage to minimize degrading visual impacts. Use of vegetation,
imaginativepainting to either please the eye or to blend with neutral,
agreeable backgrounds,and strategicpositioning of buildings and struc-
tures will significantlylessen disagreeablevisual impacts.

3.0 AIR-RELATED IMPACTS

3.1 Important Background Information

3.1.1 MeteorologicalData

Considerationof factors causing air-related environmentalimpacts

must proceed from a base of meteorologicaldata describing short-termand
longtermweather patters at the project site. Availabilityand comprehen-
siveness of these kinds of informationwill vary from location to location.
Proximity to an airport with a fairly long operatinghistory will usually
ensure availabilityof some such data. However, if the airport is somewhat
distant from the coast, careful adjustmentsmay be necessary to obtain a
clear picture of recurring conditionsat the project site. Data most
needed include prevailingwinds (annualwind roses are very valuable),
seasonal weather patterns, frequent storm tracks, storm frequency and seve-
rity, and rainfall records. In addition, typical barometric, temperature
and relativehumidity data are useful.

The other key factors in determiningthe extent of the project's

air-related impacts are the project site and delineationand characteriza-
tion of principal downwind impact areas.

3.1.2 Background Data on Prevalenceof Present Airborne Substances

If the project area and vicinity have several airbornepollutant

sources, the background levels caused by their operation must be deter-
 - 42 -

mined. The components of these releases should be identified and their

dispersion characteristics noted (how far do they travel and under what
conditions?). The potential for photochemical reactions and reactions with
moisture in the air should be estimated--from research results, not from
site conditions.

3.1.3 Identify Sensitive Areas

Using the historical meteorological data, likely downwind sensi-

tive areas must be identified and delineated--farmlands, forests, wetlands,
water reservoirs, residential areas and grazing lands. Should an extensive
meteorological history not be available, as much information as possible
should be obtained from competent local knowledge. Ship pilots and fisher-
men are possible sources. A simple temporary meterological station adja-
cent to the site should be set up and as long a period of recording as
possible obtained.

3.2 Fugitive Emissions (See also Section 2.5)

3.2.1 Sources and Control Measures

Finely divided particulates suspended in air and windblown from

source to point of deposition constitute impact-causing dusts. Major sour-
ces can be construction activities (earthmoving and rock drilling), traffic
on unpaved roadways, fugitive emissions from outdoor storage of raw mate-
rials, ores, and particulate refined products. Knowledge of prevailing
winds and identification of areas most likely to be subjected to dust dis-
persion set the basis for determining the seriousness of airborne dust
impacts. Wetting, use of sprayed coagulants, sheet material, enclosure of
storage areas and enclosed conveyor systems will appreciably diminish
related environmental impacts.

3.3 Gases, Smoke and Fumes

3.3.1 Sources, Components, Controls

Background sources vary from electric generating stations, incine-

rators (see Section 2.7.3.1), smelters, steel mills, and many other indus-
trial operations ranging from ships at dockside and under way to vehicle
emissions to residential heating and cooking. Components vary widely as
well, depending on the source process. Background emission levels and
composition should be determined before designing additional facilities
that will add to the air pollution load. Control systems (scrubbers, etc.)
may or may not be required by local authorities, but every effort--barring
prohibitive cost--should be implemented to avoid adding to the existing air
pollution load.

Fumes can constitute a separate aspect in that they may not neces-
sarily be associated with combustion or heat processes but may come as well
from other types of industrial chemical processes. A common example is the
air--petroleum vapors emitted from uncovered storage tanks or covered tanks
 - 43 -

when vented for refilling. Because of their nature and origin, they may
also have a greater potential for harm--to the environment and to public
health. Control processes should be implemented (covering of tanks and
trapping of vented emissions), utilizing recycling techniques or chemical
absorption (reliquefaction), neutralization and burn-off stacks.

4.0 HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS/CARGOES

4.1 Categories--Gases, Liquids, Solids

A hazardous material, in a general sense, can be any substance

which has some inherent instability that under the right conditions can
lead to fire, explosion or extremely damaging conditions perhaps caused by
highly corrosive characteristics--or a substance sufficiently toxic to be
an immediate threat to life and public health if not properly confined and
controlled. So defined, "hazardous material" covers a broad range of mate-
rials, i.e., gasoline, liquefied natural gas (LNG), sulfuric acid, other
corrosive chemicals, pesticides, and explosives--as examples. Some hazar-
dous materials may be waste products; others, finished products; and
others, unrefined natural materials (crude oil, for example). The single
basic feature is that admitted into an uncontrolled situation, serious
damage and extensive threats to life and health may result. See World Bank
publications (1985a, 1985b) for comprehensive guidelines and procedures for
conducting hazardous substance assessments.

4.1.1 Key Considerations

If hazardous materials or cargoes are or will be handled at the

proposed port or port facility, precise information must be obtained
regarding kind, amount and condition of the materials, how the materials
will be handled and stored, and where the handling and storing will take
place, and how any hazardous wastes generated will be disposed of. Unequi-
vocal regulations must be established covering every aspect of their pre-
sence at the facility--from arrival to manufacturing to processing to
storage to dispatch. Special regulations may be advisable controlling or
prohibiting other ship traffic in the port when a ship laden with hazardous
material is arriving or departing. Where bulk materials are stored or
liquids held in tank farms appropriate bunds and containment arrangements
will be required to cope with possible failure or rupture of the storage
system. The regulations, of course, are only as effective as the workers
are trained, supervised, and made aware of the risks involved.

5.0 SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS

The very best engineering, highly laudable environmental planning,

and extensive economic justification can all serve to no avail if work
practices, site selection or similar factors run counter to socio-cultural
standards and traditions. Project planning must incorporate a comprehen-
sive survey and result in a thorough understanding of local tribal, cult-
ural, ethnic, historical, religious traditions. Failure to do so may
essentially cancel any benefits from the project.
 - 44 -

There must be a careful examination of how port/harbor development

or expansion will interact with the inhabitants of the area and the general
surrounding population presumed to be benefiting from the project. Mea-
sures should be designed to integrate the project into the landscape (in
the broadest sense of the term) and to ease transition to a contemporary,
more industrialized society--while preserving valued traditions and
culture.

6.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS AFFECTING

THE PROJECT AND ITS CONSTRUCTION

Project planning must also include a thorough review of local

judicial structure as it may affect, or in turn, be affected by the project
and newly imposed required regulations. The aspects to be carefully inves-
tigated should include regulations influencing environmental values, safe-
ty, harzardous substances, financial considerations, criminal behavior and
punishment, export-import regulations, foreign consultant and labor-use,
and laws or restrictions tied to socio-religious traditions.

7.0 NEED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FACILITY OPERATION ENVIRONMENTAL

MONITORING

All too often, once environmental compensation and/or mitigation

measures have been satisfactorily defined and the project approved, con-
struction and then facility operation follow with little heed paid to sub-
sequent environmental concerns. In some cases, this lack of follow-up
threatens to undo all the environmental protection plans carefully
developed during the planning stages.

If, during the planning stages, specific environmental aspects

appear to require the protection provided by construction and/or operation
monitoring, it may be advisable to incorporate provisions into project
documents as covenants requiring continued monitoring. Such provisions
should spell out types of monitoring required, frequency of observation,
reporting procedures, and necessary actions to be taken if the environment
protective measures are violated. There should also be guidelines for
reduction or termination of monitoring if anticipated impact threats do not
materialize and longterm indications are that they will not occur in the
future.
 - 45 -

PART IV - BIBLIOGRAPHY

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 1973. International Convention

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships with its 1978 Protocol
(MARPOL 73178) as amended.

International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) 1974. Tanker Safety Guide

(Chemicals).

International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) 1978. Tanker Safety Guide

(Liquefied Gas).

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 1978. Guidelines on the

Provision of Adequate Reception Facilities in Ports - Part I
(Oil); Part II (Noxious Liquids and Substances in Bulk); Part III
(Sewage); Part IV (Garbage).

Pequegnat, Willis E. 1980. Analysis of the Impacts of Dredged Material

Disposal in the Deep Ocean; Second International Ocean Dumping
Symposium, Wood Hole, Oceanographic Institution. April.

Pequegnat, Willis E. 1981. Oceanographic Surveys required for Dumpsite

Selection, Official Designation and Monitoring of Dredged Material
Dumpsites in the USA; 3rd International Symposium on Dredging
Technology, Bordeaux, France. March.

Kamlet, K.S. 1983. Dredged Material Ocean Dumping: Perspectives on Legal

and Environmental Impacts; in: Wastes in the Ocean, Volume 2,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.

International Chamber of Shipping/Oil Companies International Marine

Forum/International Association of Ports and Harbours
(ICS/OCIMF/LAPH) 1984. International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers
and Terminals (ISGOTT)

The World Bank 1984. Environmental Guidelines (Office of Environmental

Affairs) 461 pp.

The World Bank 1985a. Environment, Health and Safety Guidelines for Use of
Hazardous Materials in Small and Medium Scale Industries (Office
of Environmental and Scientific Affairs) Washington, D.C. 43 pp.

The World Bank 1985b. Manual of Industrial Hazard Assessment Techniques

(Office of Environmental and Scientific Affairs) Washington, D.C.
99 pp & appendices.

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 1986. Control of Ships and

Discharges.

The World Bank 1986. Overview of Port-Related Industries (Prep. by E.G.

Frankel, G. Panagakos, G. Mahnken). Transportation Dept. 379 pp.
 - 46 -

Olson, Per H. 1987. Reception Facilities in Ports for Residues and

Mixtures Containing Noxious Liquid Substances. Ports and Harbors
(June 1987). pp. 19-28.

Olson, Per H. 1987. Environmental Protection, Port and Shipping Safety

with Emphasis on Noxious Liquid Substances. Port Management and
Operations, Port of Gothenburg Consultancy AB (June 1987). 24 pp.

The World Bank 1987. An Analysis of Port Engineering Standards (prep. by

J.E. Clifford and J. Lethbridge). Transportation Dept. 128 pp.

International Maritime Organization (IMO). Manual on Oil Pollution.

Section I - Prevention (1983 revised edition); Section II -
Contingency Planning (1988 revised edition); Section IV -
Practical Information on Means of dealing with Oil Spillages
(currently under revision).
 Annex I

The Environmentally Sound Disposal of Dredged Materials

 - 49 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction 51

- The purpose of this document. . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

- What are dredged materials? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
- The reason for environmentalcontrols on dredged
materials disposal ................ . 53

2 Scope of the Problem 55

- What is pollution? ................ . 55

- How do sedimentsbecome contaminated?. . . . . . . . 56
- Contaminatedsediments and environmentaleffects . . 56
- Environmentalstandards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
- Pre-project characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3 InternationalAgreementsRegulating Pollution 60

- The conventions.60
- Land-based sources of contaminantsand contaminated
sediments.62
- Application to dredged materials . . . . . . . . . . 62

4 Effect of EnvironmentalRestrictionson the Dredging and

Transportationof Materials 63

- Types of restrictions.63
- Port design .63
- Dredging equipment .68
- Selection of equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5 Review of disposal options 71

- Option types.. ................ 71

- Discussionof disposal options . . . . . . . . . . . 71
- Minimizing costs through careful planning . . . . . . 76

6 Recommendationsand Conclusions 77

- Recommendations.77
- Conclusions.79

7 Bibliography.81

Attachment 1 - London Dumping Convention- Annexes I, II, III

Attachment 2 - Guidelines to the Disposal of Dredged Materials
 - 51 -

1. INTRODUCTION

As part of its policy to ensure that environmentalconsiderations

form an integralcomponent of all lending operations, the World Bank
prepared and published INU-5 "EnvironmentalConsiderationsfor Port and
Harbour Development"in January 1989. Although that report discusses
the disposal of dredged sediments,increasingregulatoryconstraintsand
environmentalconcerns with marine disposal in general led the Bank to
augment the discussionswith this report which specificallyaddresses
the various disposal options available today and future directions.

Increasingpublic concern for the quality of the marine

environmenthas led the heavily-industrialised European and North
American countries and Japan to implement regulationscontrolling
dredging and the open-waterdisposal of dredged sediments. Without
careful considerationof the impacts of these regulations,many ports
could be subject to severe limitationsas to their maintaining
navigationalaccess. Sediments from most maintenance dredging projects
are recently depositedmaterials often contaminateddue to pollution
from a variety of point (oufalls)and non-point sources (generalrun-
off). These sources contributechemical substancesnow considered as
environmentalor health hazards. For example, 17-33% of the projected
60 million cubic metres to be dredged in the Netherlands in 1990 are
considered so badly polluted as to require disposal within confined
disposal facilities.

The following tablel illustratesthe typical annual volume of

maintenance dredging activity.

1/ Source: J.G. Villot, Terra et Aqua 30 November 1985.

 - 52 -

The Purpose of this document

The World Bank is associated with many dredging projects through

its lending operations to countries for infrastructure development or
improvement. The purpose of this report is to provide a more in-depth
discussion of the disposal of sediments dredged during construction or
maintenance projects and it specifically reviews:

* the scope of the problem;

* inter-governmental agreements regulating pollution;

* disposal options;

* future options; and,

* the costs associated with poor environmental planning in the

design of dredging and port development projects.

The document is purposely brief so as to provide an overview of

the topic. It is intended for both World Bank staff and project staff
from the Bank's borrowing countries. It is not intended to be a
definitive work on dredged material disposal. It must also be
appreciated that there is continuing research and development being
undertaken in many countries to provide an economical answer to the
problem of dredging harbour sediments, while at the same time minimizing
the environmental impact of the disposal of such sediments.

What are Dredged Materials?

The term dredged materials encompasses sediments, soils and rocks

excavated underwater for the purposes of providing or maintaining
channels, ports, and waterways or generated during the construction of
port or waterway facilities (e.g., berthing facilities, turning basins)
in support of maritime-borne commerce, fishing fleets and naval defence.

Dredged materials can be broadly divided into four categories:

1) Material derived from maintenance dredging of areas affected by

sedimentation resulting from rivers or estuaries or land run-off.
This material tends to be fine-grained (silts and clays) and often
contains large quantities of organic matter (plant detritus to
sewage).

The process of sedimentation and the nature of the materials

typically creates a heterogeneous distribution of contaminants
within the sediments, including particular "hotspots". The
variation in the vertical profile of contaminant concentrations is
a function not only of the depositional history, but also the
frequency of dredging, the environmental quality of the overlying
waters, effluents and run-off, and the history of activities in
the port area. This category of materials is usually the most
 - 53 -

contaminated of the four groupings and therefore is the focus of

the environmental concerns as to the regulation of the disposal.

2) Material derived from maintenance dredging of sand bars at the

entrances to harbours or channels. This material tends to be fine
to coarse-grained sands resulting from long-shore transport of
materials or from erosion/accretion processes near the harbour
entrance. The nature of the sources of such materials tends to
result in much less-contaminated materials compared to Category 1.
This material can often be used beneficially such as for beach
nourishment or construction fill material.

3) Material derived from capital dredging within a port (e.g., a new

berthing facility). As described in Category 1, sediments within
this area represent a layering of sediments over a period of time
and therefore the concentrations of contaminants can vary
substantially over a vertical profile of the dredge cut.
Typically, the upper layer is the most contaminated, is
organic-rich and fine-grained. The deeper materials are usually
less contaminated and often coarse-grained or hard-pan materials,
however, historical contamination (eg. shipyards, spills, etc.)
can reveal contamination even in these materials.

The variable nature of the sediments leads to a multi-option

program for disposal with some materials having to be contained,
while other materials being suitable for open-water disposal or a
beneficial use.

4) Material derived from capital dredging of channels or outer

harbour areas. This material tends to be relatively
coarse-grained and uncontaminated, although the nature of the
materials is a function of the historical activities within the
region. Such materials are often used to counter shoreline
erosion, for beach nourishment or as fill materials.

The reason for environmental controls on dredged materials disposal

Traditionally, dredged materials have been disposed at an

open-water site without limitation. The increasing concern with regard
to the environmental impact of disposal in the marine environment, in
particular of materials that could be described as "contaminated or
polluted" has led to the imposition of restrictions on such disposal,
including placement within containment facilities or not permitting
dredging. Such regulation through either restriction of activities or
increased costs can limit the dredging and thereby have a marked effect
on the economy of a region or even a country. Such effects have to be
balanced against the benefits to the environment that will result.

Areas of sediment deposition typically contain fine-grained

sediments and often contain high concentrations of organic materials.
Such sediments are also well known as "sinks" for many chemical
compounds, in particular those compounds known to be of environmental
 - 54 -

concern or health hazards as a result of several physical and chemical

processes: 1) many organic contaminants (e.g., PCB, and pesticides)
have a low solubility in water, are therefore primarily associated with
suspended solids and are transported to the sediments via particle
deposition; 2) when freshwater interacts with seawater there is a
significant decrease in the solubility of many metals thereby promoting
their precipitation; and 3) when freshwater interacts with seawater, the
flocculation of suspended solids is promoted, increasing their
deposition rate and that of the associated contaminants.

Since these zones of sediment deposition are also often the areas
requiring routine maintenance dredging, such dredged materials typically
contain contaminants considered hazardous or potentially hazardous. The
identification of what chemical substances are considered hazardous or
potentially hazardous has been established by various international
conventions. Recommended concentrations of concern for these substances
have often been implemented as regulated levels by the signatories of
the international conventions, although there are differences in the
absolute limits comparing national standards. Worldwide concern for the
effect of "contaminants" on the environment in general, and foodstuffs
in particular, has led many governments to require special constraints
on the disposal of such contaminated dredged materials. Constraints
have been designed or imposed to limit adverse effects on the marine
bio-environment; to limit specific effects on a fishery or
shell-fishery; or to limit bioaccumulation of various contaminants
leading to human health effects through consumption of contaminated
biological resources.

In terms of the overall quantity of material to be dredged in the

world, however, contaminated materials make up only a relatively small
fraction. Thus, it is very important in the planning of any project to
carefully characterize and describe the nature of the materials to be
dredged - not just in an overall sense but location by location and at
various depths. This permits the differentiation between those
sediments which are truly contaminated and which require special
handling and those which are little different from natural sediments in
the region and could therefore be disposed at an open-water site.
Although such characterization will require more than normal effort in
preparation and pre-project assessment, significant financial savings
can be obtained by not having to contain or handle in a special fashion
all of the dredged materials.

The source of much of this contamination is land-based activities,

such as industrial effluents, residential sewage and disposal and
agricultural practices (land clearing, pesticide applications). The
problems are not restricted to developed countries but occur worldwide.
It becomes very important in port development to take into consideration
how activities throughout the surrounding area can affect port
operations through the unrestricted or poorly regulated entry of
contaminants into the dredged sediments.
 - 55 -

2. SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

What is Pollution?

Pollution2 occurs when the concentrations of various chemical or

biological constituents exceed a level at which a negative impact on
amenities, the ecosystem, resources and human health can occur.
Pollution results primarily from human activities. The sources of
pollution are numerous, including such obvious examples as sewage, urban
run-off, industrial processing wastes and effluents, coastal
developments, shipping activities and atmospheric dust and fall-out.
The chemical or biological constituents creating pollution are known as
contaminants. More specifically they can be divided into inorganic
contaminants such as zinc or lead; organic contaminants, such as
pesticides, PCB or petroleum hydrocarbons; and biological contaminants,
such as coliform bacteria and pathogens.

Physical impacts associated with dredged material disposal can

also seriously damage habitat and interfere with other activities such
as fishing. However, proper dumpsite selection can minimize these
impacts.

The list of potential contaminants is very long. Our

understanding of the hazards of such contaminants as trace metals,
bacteria, or petroleum hydrocarbons is reasonably well based. However,
within the past forty years, society has increasingly become dependent
on plastics and various man-made organic chemical compounds (e.g.,
pesticides, PCB). Only now are we beginning to realize that the very
properties that make such compounds so useful in everyday life, also
make them very persistent in the natural environment.

Pollution is not a recent phenomenon resulting in a change in a

country's economic status from an underdeveloped nation, but has
occurred since the first concentration of Man around a port area.
Recent industrialization has only accelerated the rate of contamination
and increased the environmental problems related to dredging and dredged
material disposal. Even in non-industrialized areas, where the
requirement for maintenance dredging arises from river-borne siltation
or other land run-off, such silts can contain fertilizers and pesticides
from agricultural areas. Such contamination is the result not of
industrial activities, but land-use practices within the adjacent
watershed.

.2/The Law of the Sea definition is "Pollution of the marine environment

means the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or
energy into the marine environment, including estuaries, which results or
is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living
resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine
activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses of the sea,
impairment of quality for use of seawater and reduction of amenities."
 - 56 -

How Do Sediments Become Contaminated?

Many organic contaminants (e.g., PCB, and pesticides) have a low

solubility in water, are therefore primarily associated with suspended
solids and are transported to the sediments via particle deposition.
Metal pollutants often enter the coastal waters associated with
suspended solids in sewage or as dissolved metals from land-use
practices and industrial activities. In reactions with seawater at pH 8
and a salinity of 25-30 ppt, the metals form new compounds which also
tend to be deposited in the sediments. The end result is that most
contaminants are finally deposited in the sediments.

Sediments requiring maintenance dredging are typically

fine-grained and rich in organic matter. The sediments are fine-
grained because the port is often designed or located in areas of low
water circulation thereby promoting the settling of the finer grained
sediments and associated organic detritus. The organic matter can be
the result of input from sewers, industrial outfalls and general
detritus. The decomposition of the organic matter consumes oxygen
leading to anoxic, sulphide-rich sediments. These sediments create a
physical-chemical regime which promotes the immobilization of associated
contaminants.

Contaminated Sediments and Environmental Effects

The introduction of contaminants via sewage, run-off and effluents

affects marine plants and animals in different ways. Fish kills due to
the introduction of a very toxic substance are an obvious result. But,
it is the long term low-level entry of contaminants, with subsequent
accumulation in the sediments, which has the more far-reaching effect
and which truly leads to a deterioration in environmental quality.
Long-term bioaccumulation of metal and organic contaminants from the
sediments does occur. The end-result can be a decrease in reproduction,
increase in disease and poor health, and an increase in the occurrence
of cancers and other abnormalities (e.g., Malins et al., 1984).

For those regions where fish or shellfish is a major source of

protein, transmission of the contaminant through the food chain to human
beings can be significant. This has led to recommended restrictions on
the quantities of fish or shellfish consumed in order to reduce or limit
the dietary intake of such chemicals. Human health is also affected by
consumption of shellfish from areas contaminated by pathogens and
bacteria. As aquaculture activities expand within coastal waters, this
industry can also be affected by contaminants introduced from land-based
sources.

To date, there is little international evidence for acute adverse

effects from the disposal of dredged sediments beyond burial of the
marine plants and animals or other resources on the sea floor. However,
there is major international concern for unknown long-term chronic
exposures and effects and therefore the need for a precautionary
approach.
 - 57 -

Environmental Standards

Many of the regulatory constraints have been based on an

extrapolation of the effects observed for in-situ contaminants to a
potential effect at the open-water disposal site or from studies of a
particular contaminant in a laboratory bioassessment.

The extrapolations have been based on a variety of techniques,

including:

Apparent effects threshold (measurement of contaminants in

plants and animals from dredged areas and assessment of the
biological effects)

Sediment-biota partitioning equilibrium (comparison of

contaminant concentration in the sediments to the
concentration in plants and animals associated with the
sediments)

* Sediment-water partitioning equilibrium (comparison of

contaminant concentration in the sediments to the plants and
animals in the overlying waters)

* Water quality objectives applied to sediment pore waters

The major deficiency in any of these techniques is the ability to

separate matrix effects or the effect of multi-contaminants or the
effect of the quality of the overlying waters from the effect of a
particular contaminant. (Chapman, 1987).

There are two schools of thought as to the criteria to be used for

open-water disposal. One school promotes the use of criteria based on
the concentrations of various chemical compounds, where the regulated
concentrations are based on laboratory or field data.

The alternative school promotes the use of detailed bio-assessment

techniques in which various test animals or plants are exposed to the
sediment in question. Effects such as bio-accumulation, mortality or
sub-lethal effects are determined.

Many regulatory agencies are favouring a combination of both

testing techniques with the use of chemical analyses to provide a "quick
scan" of the sediments in question; if the measured concentrations are
less than a specific criteria, the material poses no concern. If the
analyses exceed a specific value, detailed bio-assessment is then
undertaken to assess the biological response to the measured
concentrations.

Pre-Proiect Characterization

The perception that all of the sediment to be dredged is seriously

contaminated on the basis of one port area can be incorrect. Such an
 - 58 -

assumption can lead to significant difficulties in the port authority

obtaining permission to dredge and also to dispose of the material in an
economically viable fashion. An example of such a problem has occurred
in such ports as: Oakland, California, USA; (World Dredging, 1989) and
Seattle, Washington, USA; (Aggerholm, 1989).

For many ports and channels, the existing soil and sediment data
characterization is often very poor, incomplete, outdated or does not
take into consideration the most recent contaminants of concern.

Careful characterization of the nature of the sediments permits

the whole port area (at various depths) to be classified into areas and
volumes based on the disposal option most suitable (both environmentally
and economically) for those particular materials.

Pre-project characterization can perform a very important role in

the planning of the project and can ensure the best application of
resources to achieve an environmentally and economically acceptable
project. Detailed characterization permits the definition of:

* disposal options (see Section 5);

* quantities of materials in the various disposal options;

* the dredging equipment to be used in consideration not only

of the disposal requirements, but also of transportation to
the disposal options and to minimize sediment re-suspension
and loss during dredging;

* monitoring programs at both the dredging and disposal

locations;

* mitigative measures that may be required at the dredging or

disposal sites;

The port or areas to be dredged can be divided or classified on

the basis of the degree of sediment contamination. The definition and
degree of contamination varies from nation to nation. It is often based
on sediments described as "uncontaminated" or "background." For
example, the following table gives sediment quality reference values
which have been formally adopted for use in the Netherlands since 1987.
Sediments lying below or equal to the "reference value" can, in general,
be deposited on the land or in fresh or sea water without restriction.
When the levels of dredged materials lie between the "reference value"
and the "testing value"open water disposal is permitted under certain
conditions. One of the conditions concerns the chemical changes in the
particular contaminants being disposed that may take place in sea water.
If the dredged materials have higher concentrations than the "testing
value" they must be disposed in controlled containment facilities
subject to constant monitoring.
 - 59 -

QUALITY STANDARDS FOR DREDGED MATERIALS IN THE NETHERLANDS

N a m e Reference Testing Signalling

(mg/kg dry matter) Value Value Value

Chromium 100 480 1000

Nickel 35 45 200
Copper 36 90 400
Zinc 140 1000 2500
Cadmium 0.8 7.5 30
Mercury 0.3 1.6 15
Lead 85 530 1000
Arsenic 29 85 150
Naphthalene 0.01 (*)
Chrysene 0.01 0.8 3 0.2
Phenanthrene 0.1 0.8 3 0.2
Anthracene 0.1 0.8 3 0.2
Fluoranthene 0.1 2.0 7 1.2
Benzo(a) pyrene 0.1 0.8 3 0.2
Benzo(a) anthracene 1 0.8 3 0.2
Benzo(k) fluoranthene 10 0.8 3 0.6
Indeno (1,2,3cd) pyrene 10 0.8 3 0.2
Benzo (ghi) perylene 10 0.8 3 0.2
Mineral Oil Total 50 3000 5000
Octane, Heptane 1
Pentachlorophenol 0.1 0.3 0.5
Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 0.02 0.5
PCB IUPAC-number:
28 0.01 0.03 0.1
52 0.01 0.03 0.1
101 0.01 0.03 0.1
118 0.01 0.03 0.1
138 0.01 0.03 0.1
153 0.01 0.03 0.1
180 0.03 0.1
Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.001 0.02 0.5
Aldrin 0.01 0.04 0.5
Dieldrin 0.01
Endrin 0.001 0.04 0.5
DDE 0.01 0.02 0.5
Endosulphan 0.01 0.02 0.5
Chlordane 0.01
Heptachlorepoxide 0.01 0.02 0.5
Hexachlorbutadiene 0.01 0.02 0.5

NOTE: (*) General sediment environmental quality: current quality of

sediments in relatively unpolluted regions.
 - 60 -

General guidance as to substances and levels of concern has been

given in the LDC.3

3. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS REGULATING POLLUTION

The oceans have long been considered to have a limitless capacity

to receive and absorb all manner of wastes. Beginning in the 1950's,
various scientists began to warn that this limitless capacity was
running out and that the very survival of the marine environment was in
doubt.

Many environmental groups began to demand that all waste disposal

in the marine environment cease. The initial focus was on disposal of
waste chemicals or incineration at sea of waste organo-halogen compounds
(e.g., PCB). In particular the cases of industrial disposal from the
Netherlands and Scandinavia4 led to various national proclamations
against such practices. Subsequently the disposal of sewage sludges and
the large volumes of dredged materials, particularly the materials from
heavily industrialized urban centres (e.g., New York, USA), led to
demands that these materials also not be permitted to be ocean disposed.
Such demands were not limited to the oceans; for example, in the early
1970's both the United States and Canada limited the disposal of dredged
sediments from the Great Lakes to confined shoreline or upland
facilities with very little material being permitted to open-water
sites.

The Conventions

Beginning with the Oslo Convention of 19745 and the Paris

Convention of 19786, the European nations sought to limit the input of
contaminants to the adjacent marine waters (the Baltic and North Seas in
particular). The conventions addressed international waters. It was
accepted that the disposal of dredged materials could occur provided the
materials contained only "trace quantities of contaminants". Materials

.2/London Dumping Convention: See Section 3 and Attachment 1 to this

Annex.

4/ "Stella Maris" incident, July 1971.

5/ The Oslo Commission was established by the Convention for the

Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft,
commonly called the Oslo Convention, which was opened for signature on 15
February 1972. The Convention entered into force 6 April 1974. Ratified
by 13 European countries.

i. The Paris Commission was established by the Convention for the

Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, commonly called
the Paris Convention, which was opened for signature 4 June 1974. The
Convention entered into force 6 May 1978. Ratified by the EEC, Sweden,
Norway and Iceland.
 - 61 -

which are primarily sand, gravel or rock, from areas of strong currents
and are therefore not likely to contain significant concentrations of
fine-grained contaminated sediments and which are intended for beach
nourishment or other forms of shoreline protection should not have to be
tested.

The intergovernmental convention on the dumpini of wastes at sea,

commonly called the London Dumping Convention (LDC), adopted the
general philosophy and has many similar articles of the Oslo Convention
and applies to all international waters.

The LDC contains a series of Annexes8 listing a large number of

chemicals and chemical compounds which are deemed hazardous or
potentially hazardous and therefore worthy of regulation (e.g., mercury
or organohalogen compounds). As with the earlier conventions, the LDC
was designed primarily to regulate the dumping of chemical or industrial
wastes in the marine environment.

The regulation of dredged materials and their disposal in the open

ocean have revolved around the following terms:

* trace contaminants
* significant amounts
* rapidly rendered harmless
* toxic
* persistent
* bio-accumulative

The question then arises as to what concentrations of such

compounds can be considered "trace" or in such a form as to be "rapidly
rendered harmless." The latter term arose from the chemical reactions
that occur when various metal contaminated liquids are inter-mixed with
seawater and the elevated pH and salinity rapidly create insoluble metal
compounds. Concepts such as "rapidly rendered harmless" are not
appropriate for such substances as organohalogen compounds which can be
bio-accumulated at any concentration.

The LDC guidelines on dredged material disposal recommend:

* representative sampling
* measuring the general characteristics

Z/ The UK, with the UN, convened an Inter-Governmental Conference on the

Convention on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea in November 1972 which adopted
the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter, the so-called London Dumping Convention. It entered
into force on 30 August 1975. IMO was designated secretariat. By June
1989, 63 countries have ratified/acceded to the convention.

t/ See Attachment 1, Guidelines for the Application of the annexes to the

Disposal of Dredged Material (Resolution LDC.23(10).
 - 62 -

* measuring the priority contaminants, and

* biological testing, if necessary, to show that the material
can be dumped so as not to cause acute chronic effects or
bio-accumulation in sensitive marine organisms typical of
the disposal site

Subsequent to the LDC, various regional seas agreements (e.g., the

Mediterranean Sea; United Nations, 1985) have been developed. These
provide a facility to focus on particular problems for a region and take
into account the particular ecosystem for that region (e.g., tropical
waters versus North Atlantic waters).

Land-Based Sources of Contaminants and Contaminated Sediments

Most contaminants originate from land-based sources. Therefore

environmental restrictions on the disposal of contaminated dredged
materials does not address the source of the problem, but only a
symptom. Control of land-based sources will play an important role in
port development (UNEP, 1985; Jeftic, 1988) by decreasing the input of
contaminants. To regulate at source, several nations recently
established the Montreal Guidelines for Land-Based Pollutants. These
guidelines express many of the same concerns for environmental impact as
are now in place in such agreements as the London Dumping Convention and
proposed to limit many of the same chemical substances. Over time
sediments will become less contaminated. Regulatory agencies and
Conventions will then be able to resume the permitting of open-water
disposal of a larger proportion of the sediments.

Application to Dredged Materials

All of the agreements or conventions serve to regulate the

introduction of chemicals to the aquatic environment. Although their
prime focus is the regulation of waste chemicals and industrial
materials, it is recognized that sewage sludges and dredged sediments
can contain some of the chemical compounds of environmental concern.
The efforts have then been to provide a regulatory regime which controls
the introduction and dispersal of contaminant through dredged material
disposal, while at the same time recognizing the economic needs for
dredging to occur.

Many countries are now introducing policies in respect of the

Brundtland Commission on Sustainable Development. This report
recommended that development occur provided that the impact on the
environment is taken into account and that all activities be undertaken
to minimize environmental impacts. Increasingly, countries will
incorporate these policies within their regulations with respect to
dredging and dredged material disposal.
 - 63 -

4. EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE DREDGING AND

TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS

Types of Restrictions

With the concern for health and environmental effects of dredging

and dredged material disposal, environmental restrictions are playing a
key role in all aspects of the project: 1) the selection of dredging
equipment; 2) the timing of the project; 3) the transportation of the
materials; and 4) the disposal option(s). As well, there could be a
requirement for monitoring during the project and for mitigative
measures to be undertaken as a result of the monitoring either during or
subsequent to the project. The purpose of all environmental
restrictions is to limit the impact of the project on both the adjacent
waters and on the users (Man, marine plants and animals) of these
waters. All dredging operations result in disturbance of the sediments
to be removed from the dredging site. The primary concern is for the
release and off-site transport of suspended solids and/or the associated
contaminants (both chemical and biological) as a consequence of the
disturbance. The various traditional dredging techniques disturb the
sediments in different ways and to greater or lesser extents. New
devices have been introduced in an attempt to completely eliminate the
release of suspended solids.

Port Design

The need for dredging is usually driven by a socio-economic need

to maintain and improve navigation or port facilities. However, poor
port or facility design can actually increase the need for dredging.
There are many examples where the placement of a facility, breakwaters,
a harbour entrance, or the deepening of a channel has led to severe
infilling by natural processes or has increased erosion and accretion
processes along adjacent shoreline areas. Thus, the need for dredging
can perhaps be reduced through hydraulic and engineering studies. Such
studies can identify the direction of sediment transport and
depositional nodes. Such studies would be particularly useful for
projects where the siting of port facilities demands frequent
maintenance dredging and where the material dredged is considered
contaminated. Thus the studies to reduce the requirements for dredging
could prove to be both economically and environmentally attractive.

Another alternative to "problem" harbours is to limit the dredging

activities to specific harbours through regional planning. Harbours
where there is minimum maintenance dredging requirements or where the
over-lying waters are thoroughly flushed (e.g., by tidal actions), and
the sediments are relatively uncontaminated should be developed rather
than other ports which have polluted sediments which require frequent
dredging to maintain navigation depths to reduce the environmental
impact of port development. For example, ports that are served by
feeder vessels typically need less water depths than ports catering to
ocean going deep-draft vessels. Thus, if there are several ports
available to a country for international maritime access, only those
 - 64- FIGURE 1

SAUERMANBUCKET

+ __ j_ TRACK
_ _ CABLE
_ > _ _

4/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~WATER
LEVEL ,

SEDIMENT

Land Based Dragline System

FIGURE 2

Bucket Ladder Dredger discharginginto Barges

de Rouen,France)
(Source:PortAutonlome
 - 65 - FIGURE 3

_ = < - 6 RAB~~~~~~~~~~~~~GA

Grab or Clamshell Dredger discharging into Barges

FIGURE4

,-L ~~~~~'I

_t*, ~3 . I

Dipper Dredger discharging into Barges

(Source:Great LakesDredge and Dock Company,USA)
 -66-

FIGURE5

S-UCKET

BARGE I

l l

Ii~~~~~~~~I - IXD SKO ORLEGS

Back-Hoe Dredger discharging into Barges

(Source:TaranakiHarboursBoard,NewZealand)

FIGURE6

Mud Cat Dredger pumping material via Pipeline

(Source:EllicottMachineCorporationIntemnational,
USA)
 67
- - FIGURE7

Self Propelled Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger

(Source:WartsilaMarine IndustriesInc., Finland)

FIGURE 8

.7-

Cutter Suction Dredger pumping material via Floating Pipeline

(Source:Zanen VerstoepNV, Netherlands)
 - 68 -

ports which require the least dredging should be selected as ports for
deep draft vessels - the remainder being served through transhipping at
the deep-water ports.

Dredging Equipment

Dredging equipment can be divided into two broad classifications:

mechanical and hydraulic:

Mechanical dredgers are very similar to their dry-land

counterparts. Material is excavated and usually placed in an
intermediate transport mode. This can be scows, self-propelled or
towed barges, trucks or even conveyor belts. Mechanical dredgers
are typically used for materials where the physical nature
requires and permits distinct excavation zones. Examples of
mechanical dredgers are the dragline (Figure 1); ladder/bucket
dredge (Figure 2); the clamshell (Figure 3); the dipper (Figure
4); and, the back-hoe (Figure 5).

Hydraulic dredgers suction the sediment via a fluidized slurry,

typically with a 5-20% solids content. The suction action is
augmented by the use of agitators, a cutter head or a trailing
drag arm. The dredged material is pumped through a pipeline
either directly into a disposal facility or into an internal or
external hopper. When the material has to be transported long
distances, pipelines with booster pumps are used. The various
types of hydraulic dredgers are illustrated in Figures 6 to 8.

The physical and chemical nature of the sediments (e.g., coarse

sand, fine-grained contaminated silt) controls the choice of dredging
equipment through environmental concerns for release of material or
associated contaminants during the actual dredging operation and through
the specialized requirements for transport to the disposal site
resulting from the dredging equipment used, the nature of the transit
route and the nature of the disposal option and site. Mechanical
dredgers tend to cause the least disturbance to the materials being
dredged and thus the minimum release into the surrounding waters. In
particular, the bucket ladder dredger may cause the least disturbance of
all types of traditional equipment and because of this effect and the
precision with which such equipment is able to operate, it is very often
selected for maintenance dredging of port areas. The typical problem
with hydraulic dredging is how to deal with huge volumes of water that
are transported with the sediments. Frequently, special measures have
to be taken to treat this water before it can be released.

Selection of Eguipment

Thus the selection of dredging equipment and procedure is not

straight forward but becomes a compromise between six competing factors:

* environmental restrictions related to the nature of the

materials and the associated contaminants.
 FIGURE 9
- 69 -

FILLING PHASE DISCHARGE PHASE

Water Comrod t
Surface Air -Dicharge

- - -- VR

Inlet . . .
Volve
: ->-.
. / Veln ~ 1.
. e W l 4Inle t

BOTTOM SEDIMENT

Operating Principle of the Pneuma Dredging System

AIR
COMPRESSED

UPPERLIMITDETECTOR
VACUUMPUMP

PM / DISCHARGEVALVE
A

VACUUM GAS

/ 9 L _ H~~~~~YDRAULIC
PRESSURE
BALL VALVE / , a ,, \

SUCTION MOUTH

Operating Principle of the Oozer Pump Dredging System

(Source:Koba and Shiba, 1981)
 - 70 -

* physical nature of the materials to be dredged;

* cost and availability of equipment;

* disposal site location and limitations;

* wind, wave and sea conditions at the dredging site, in

transit and at the disposal site;

* interference with other waterway users at the dredging site,

in transit and at the disposal site (for both recreational
and commercial users).

Environmental restrictions and concerns can affect the choice of

equipment and operational procedures in three ways:

* Change to alternate equipment (e.g., Oozer pump9 suction

dredge to eliminate the release of materials at the point of
excavation);

* Modifications to standard equipment or procedure (e.g,

closed clamshell bucket dredge or trailing suction hopper
dredge with no overflow);

* Change in equipment to accommodate disposal options (e.g.,

special off-loading equipment on a disposal barge to pump
into a disposal facility);

It may be possible to undertake the dredging component in

environmentally-sensitive areas without such changes, but, by designing
into the project a variety of mitigative measures to ensure that the
occurrence of an unacceptable impact is minimized while still permitting
the use of available dredging equipment. Mitigative measures could
include changes in the timing of a project (e.g., by season to avoid
fish migrations or spawning or submerging pump-ashore pipelines or
careful control of the movement of transit barges to avoid interference
with commercial navigation); use of silt curtains; or use of specialized
equipment for the most-contaminated surface materials followed by other
equipment for less-contaminated sediment zones.

To be able to properly institute such mitigative measures

typically requires an on-going or real-time monitoring program. Such
programs usually entail regular sampling and analysis of turbidity or
suspended solids; accumulation of sediments in sensitive areas; or
monitoring for changes in dissolved oxygen or salinity (the result of
release of gases from anoxic sediments or the intrusion of salt wedges
into estuarine channels). Examples of such programs and the planning
required can be found in Pequegnat et al. (1981)

2/ See Figure 9 for operating principle.

 - 71 -

5. REVIEW OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS

Option Types

There are six disposal options:

1. no dredging and therefore no requirement for disposal;

2. open-water disposal: a) no containment

b) contained

3. shoreline disposal: a) unconfined

b) confined

4 upland disposal: a) unconfined

b) confined

5. treatment of the contaminated sediments using hazardous wastes

treatment processes;

6. using a combination of options 2 to 5;

As discussed in Section 4, there is usually a strong

socio-economic reason for dredging, and thus the first option is rarely
acceptable unless a port's vessel traffic can be changed to shallower
drafts and the no dredging option would result in sustainable
navigation. Within Options 2, 3 and 4, there are two sub-options: the
first, representing an option for material that meets environmental
specifications for contaminants; the second for material that contains
contaminants in excess of guidelines.

Discussion of Disposal Options

Open-Water Disposal: Uncontained open-water disposal has been the

traditional method of dredged material disposal because it was the
cheapest; there were few, if any, limitations on the location of the
disposal site; the oceans were considered to have a limitless capacity
to absorb waste materials; and, the disposal was considered to be simply
"speeding up" natural processes of land-based soils being deposited into
the oceans.

Figure 10 shows the open-water disposal process. Although much of

the material does fall to the bottom within approximately the boundaries
of the disposal site, strong upper water column or near-bottom currents
can transport portions of the material off-site. This off-site
transportation can lead to re-infilling of the dredged area, siltation
of shellfish or fish spawning areas, or re-distribution of contaminated
sediments.
 - 72 - FIGURE 10

/~. -NRELEASE ZONE |

CURREF 11

-POLUVERYDL
DREDGDENSI TYMATR

HEAGHMETASIT AEIL

UTE
SATE
ALALRIERN

Releasing Dredged Material from a Hopper Dredger or Barge

(Source: Pequegnat et al., 1980J

FIGURE 11
H4YDROARLIC
oISCHARGE
-POLLUTED DREDGED
MAtERIIAL NUTRIENTS
HEAVY METALS

UTANTS SEDIMENT VEGETATION

/7///\ \X~> INTERACTION
T INTERACTION
7

SLUICE

-EFFLUENT-
MJTRIENTS?
HEAVY METALS?
[~I~ ( I[ / -ORGANICS I
GROUNDWATER

Cross Section of a Simple Confined Disposal Site

(Source:Chen et al., 1978)
 - 73 - FIGURE12

h's X
:'N!
.;-:'..

*9o *.:

,::- :, : .. S.-.

.<:m... *

Open Water Capping of Polluted Sediments

(Source:Pequegnat,1981)

FIGURE13

DERRICK

2 ~~~~~~~~~
~ CHARGELINE

_~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~BARGE
,, ,,

| SUBMERGEDDIFFUSER

CLEANSAND,ETC
~~~
aC~~~APPING
MAEIL-.--*--- ~ -

Submerged Difuser System for Placing Materials

(Source:Shields and Montgomery, 1984)
 - 74 -

1' An innovative disposal technique, called the "thin layer" disposal

method, is currently (June 1989) being tested by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers at Mississipi Gulfport. The principle is to dispose of the
contaminated dredged material by spreading it very thinly over a wide
area. Various environmental agencies are associated with a one year
experiment to assess the impact of spreading about 3 million cubic
meters of dredged material in Mississipi Sound and monitoring the speed
of recovery of the environment.

In some projects, it may be more cost-effective or more beneficial

to use the dredged materials to limit shoreline erosion, for beach
nourishment or as fill or construction materials. However, in these
cases, the material has to have a physical and geotechnical nature that
permits these uses.

Unconfined Disposal: For fine-grained materials, unconfined land

or shoreline disposal has been less frequently employed. Some countries
(e.g., The Netherlands) encouraged the use/disposal of dredged river or
estuarine sediments on land areas to provide agricultural soils.
However, as the understanding of contaminant chemistry and the existence
of many trace organic contaminants increased, limitations had to be
placed on this form of disposal. In many ports, land space is at a
premium and the ability to site an upland or even a shoreline confined
disposal facility is severely restricted or economically prohibitive.

Confined Disposal: As environmental concerns increased with all

forms of waste disposal in the oceans, many nations actively considered
forbidding all forms of ocean disposal, including that of dredged
sediments. Placement of dredged materials, irrespective of the degree
of contamination, was instituted in either shoreline or upland
facilities (Figure 11). This process drastically increases disposal
costs. Rough cost estimates from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
Public Works Canada suggest that unit costs for dredging and disposal in
a confined disposal facility is probably at least five times as
expensive as open-water disposal. This cost increase is due to the
construction of the facility, the limitations on handling created by
having to place the material within the facility and the long-term
management and monitoring of the facility.

Open-Water Disposal with Capping: From numerous studies conducted

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Gambrell et al., 1978), it was
apparent that by maintaining contaminated anoxic sediments in a disposal
site under the same conditions as existed at the dredge site, many of
the contaminants, particularly the trace metals, remained chemically
immobilized and thus had a low bioavailability.

To retain the physical-chemical regime in the dredged sediments

and yet limit the interactions of the contaminated materials with the
overlying waters and biota, the concept of open-water containment or
capping (Figure 12) has been suggested (Shields, and Montgomery, 1984).
In this form, contaminated material is buried under approximately one
metre of "clean" sediment. Techniques have been developed for the
 - 75 -

delivery of both the contaminated and cover materials (Figure 13)

thereby improving the disposal techniques and reducing the amount of
cover material required. Studies (O'Connor and O'Connor, 1983; Brannon
et al., 1986; Truitt, 1986) have shown that such disposal does constrain
the contaminated materials and limit interactions between the overlying
waters, the biota and the contaminants. Recent studies carried out for
the port of Baltimore, USA, suggest that the unit dredging costs
including such disposal methods may more than double the costs of
dredging with simple open-water disposal. Detailed comparative studies
of upland confined, shoreline confined, and open-water disposal of
highly contaminated sediments have recently shown that open-water
disposal, with appropriate controls, can pose the least environmental
impact considering all impacts.1 0

Specialized Treatment: Where the quantities are relatively small,

readily accessible within a port area and highly contaminated, another
option is treatment or in-material immobilization. The use of treatment
techniques to-date has been typically limited to projects where the
level of contamination has required expensive or very limited disposal
options and therefore a treatment technology is a
financially-acceptable attractive alternative to the high costs of
specialized disposal (McGrath, 1988; Allen, 1988). A variety of
techniques have been proposed and tested on sediments (NRC, 1988; SAIC,
1985), but several drawbacks have been identified:

1) the original techniques were developed for handling dry

contaminated soil not large quantities of wet dredged
material;

2) the physical distribution of the materials to be dredged

requires considerable handling to bring them to the
treatment facility;

3) the treated material still has to be disposed and therefore

the treatment process must ensure that the material will
meet environmental criteria;

4) the existing treatment techniques are expensive and of a

complex technology.

Recently, a heat treatment and pelletizing process has been

successfully tested in the Port of Hamburg (Kroning, 1988; Hampel et
al., 1988). Here, to reduce the volume of material to be treated, all
of the dredged material is subjected to a separation process. A
centrifuge system first separates the course materials from the
contaminated fine sediments. The fine sediments are then subjected to a
de-watering process prior to stockpiling and then heat treatment. The
water used for the centrifuge system and resulting from the dewatering
is specially treated before discharge. The two drawbacks may be the

QO U.S. Corps of Engineers, Black Rock Harbor, Connecticut, study.

 - 76 -

cost of the system and its complexity. The question of treatment

technology versus simple disposal then becomes one of cost comparison
between the two.

Another limitation in the use of treatment technologies is the

complexity of the techniques. Many of the procedures for dredging and
dredged material disposal, including the construction of confined
disposal facilities have well established engineering protocols.
Agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, are continuously
undertaking research and development projects to refine techniques and
revise procedural manuals. The problem of trained staff and the ability
to procure the equipment could be a major detraction to the introduction
and use of such processes in less developed countries.

Minimizing Costs Through Careful Planning

Careful characterization of the sediments proposed for dredging,

may identify Option 6, with a combination of options, as the most
acceptable, taking into account both environmental and economic
considerations. Under this scenario, all of the port area to be
dredged, irrespective of the timing of the separate projects, is
carefully assessed and the material characterized as to its physical and
chemical natures. Quantities that are clearly contaminated and of poor
geotechnical properties are identified for specialized containment or
even treatment; as materials are identified as being less-contaminated,
less stringent options for disposal are identified. This process has
proven very successful in the Port of Rotterdam (van Bochoven et al.,
1988). The port of Hamburg is testing the next stage in which the
materials identified as being so contaminated as to warrant specialized
containment are physically sorted through either natural separation
through settling or through the use of a hydrocyclone. Only the fine-
grained materials, with which the contaminants are primarily associated,
require treatment or containment. The remaining materials, after
testing, can then be disposed via other options. This further reduces
the volume of contaminated material to be disposed in a specialized
manner.

The end result of choosing the multi-option process is to reduce

and contain the costs of the project while maintaining the proper
environmental controls.

Having identified those areas which are severely or moderately

contaminated, policies can be drafted both to limit the requirements for
dredging and thus disposal for those areas and to limit the sources of
contamination, typically from land-based sources (both riverine and
outfalls within the port). In the application of any disposal option,
the long-term costs associated with the option have to be considered
within the short and long-term costs of the project and the cost/benefit
ratio.
 - 77 -

A recent, March 1989, surveyll of USA maintenance dredging

materials disposal on an annual volume basis showed the following use of
disposal options:

Ocean open-water 22.5%

Coastal open-water 20.0%
Confined up-land 30.5%
Containment islands 6.5%
Beneficial uses 20.4%

The beneficial uses were mostly for beach nourishment. Twelve ports, 24%
of the survey, reported that they had dredged material that required
special care in disposal and 72% that they would face much greater
difficulties in finding disposal sites in the future.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations

The World Bank through its lending operations is associated with

many dredging projects for infrastructure developments or improvements.
Recognizing the potential environmental impact of dredging operations,
it is essential that in preparing and executing projects that extreme
care is exercised to minimize or avoid detrimental impacts.

The first step in the preparatory process is to determine if any

of the materials to be dredged are contaminated and, if so, are they
contaminated to an extent which might cause pollution. In areas where
contaminated sediments are suspected to exist, tests should be carried
out in typically representative areas and depths to characterize the
degree of contamination in the materials to be dredged. This does not
mean that each sample should be subjected to exhaustive organic and
inorganic chemical analyses to establish the presence and the
concentrations of a wide-ranging list of compounds since knowledge of
local discharge/disposal practices can be used to make a list of "most
probable to occur" substances. Selective analysis can be used to assess
the potential for pollution effects. Alternatively, the substances
shown in Annexes I and II of the London Dumping Convention (see
attachment 1) and also the Table on page 9, Section 2, could be used as
a list of compounds to be investigated. If the results of these tests
indicate that there are sediments which have sufficiently high levels of
contamination that they would probably result in harmful effects (i.e.
pollution) when disposed in open-water or unconfined upland disposal
sites then a carefully prepared action plan must be undertaken.
Concentrations that define "contaminated" are still not universally
accepted. As a guide, the LDC has defined concentrations for some trace
metal contaminants; the North American and European countries are now
attempting to define concentrations for organic compounds. Attachment 2

11/ Dredged Material Disposal Survey: American Association of Port

Authorities (AAPA) March 1989; 7 pages plus annexes.
 - 78 -

of this report contains the LDC Guidelines to the Disposal of Dredged

Materials which contains very useful information on how the problem
should be addressed.

The second step is to carry out a detailed characterization of all

of the sediments within the port or harbour confines and to depths which
are likely to be disturbed or exposed by the proposed dredging. This
detailed characterization will enable the port areas to be divided into
dredging zones each of which may require different types of dredging
techniques and methods of disposal. The objective of this
characterization program should be to reduce the volumes of dredged
materials which are difficult to dispose of to a minimum. It is likely
that the design concept of the proposed project may have to be amended
at this stage to avoid dredging excessive volumes of polluted materials.
Associated with this step should be the commencement of a program to
eliminate the sources of the contaminants. Although even instant
elimination of the land-based sources of contamination would still take
a long period for the polluted sediments to be restored through natural
processes to levels "acceptable" for open-water disposal, it is
essential that action be taken now to control the sources based on the
Montreal Guidelines on Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution. This may
be difficult to put in place since the sources could be upstream in
another country or associated with a multitude of long established
industries and practices which cannot be corrected overnight and which
will require very considerable investment - often in foreign exchange.

The third step is to select the type of dredging equipment to be

employed for each zone - using specialist equipment for the very
polluted sediments to avoid excessive disturbance and re-suspension.

The fourth step is to select the method of disposal to be used for

the materials resulting from each zone using the various options
available. The system for transportation of the dredged materials to
the eventual disposal site must also be considered and a selection made.

The fifth st:epconcerns the disposal. If disposal in open-water

is proposed, the existing regulatory conventions must be observed, with
appropriate sediment and disposal site option testing carried out to
predict the likely effects of the disposal option. The studies and
tests to be carried out may include:

* the general requirements of the LDC

* chemical and physical analysis
* biological testing
* formulation of the impact hypothesis
* the development and use of quality standards

Considerable information is readily available on the objectives

and scope of these studies and tests from sources such as IMO and well
established national laboratories. It is important to appreciate that
open-water ocean disposal of uncontaminated dredged materials can also
cause major environmental impacts through, for example, suspended
 - 79 -

sediments reducing light penetration essential for corals or natural

gravel beds used for spawning or as a habitat by certain marine species
becoming covered by clays or silts.

If confined upland disposal is selected, the facility will require

careful design, construction and monitoring. In particular, aspects to
be considered will possibly include: lining the containment basin with
impermeable materials to avoid leaching into the underlying aquifers;
treatment of the run-off water before returning it to the regime; and,
the final land use when the containment basin is filled.

It is important to put in place adequate long term monitoring

procedures for all of the dredging and disposal systems, and this is
particularly important if polluted dredged materials are involved.
Apart from chemical/physical testing, biological testing is extremely
important - especially testing for bio-accumulation using a fish, a
crustacean and a mollusc typical of the disposal site.

Conclusions

Although it is difficult to place a value on "good environment",

increasing public concern for the impact on the environment and the
potential increase in risk to human health or foodstuffs, has led to the
demand for increased environmental control. As there is usually a
socio-economic need for dredging and port construction, viable options
for disposal must be considered.

Several governments have proposed restricting all disposal to

confined shoreline or upland facilities thereby limiting the disposal of
any wastes in the marine environment. The high costs of such disposal,
coupled with scientific studies to show that the chemistry of open-water
disposal better immobilized the contaminants compared to shoreline or
upland facilities, has led to suggestions for a return to open-water
disposal, but with containment achieved through capping.

An alternative to disposal and containment is the treatment of the

contaminated sediments using techniques established for treating
hazardous materials (e.g., leaching/washing or heat fusion). Many of
these techniques have been developed from the treatment of contaminated
soils or hazardous wastes. The primary drawback is the cost and the
technological sophistication of the techniques.

Many of the complaints associated with environmental restrictions

on dredged material disposal are related to the increase in cost for
disposal compared to a pre-regulation period. Since the public demand
for regulations to reduce environmental impact and heath hazards is
increasing, it is in the best interests of the project to determine
other methods of undertaking the project in a cost-competitive fashion
while still meeting all environmental regulations. The cost for
dredging and having to dispose of the materials in an upland containment
basin are likely to increase the unit costs of dredging by a factor of
five times. If it is possible to dispose of the materials in an open-
 - 80 -

water site - including capping - the unit costs may be increased by a

factor of about two and a half provided the site is not too far distant.

Although the no-dredging option is typically unacceptable for

various socio-economic reasons, the undertaking of engineering studies
to limit the source of siltation of the port or the need to dredge can
be very cost effective. Such studies can lead to the construction of
facilities or changes to existing structures which will help to minimize
the requirements for dredging contaminated sediments and thus reduce a
difficult disposal problem.
 - 81 -

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, D. 1988. Bench-/Pilot-Scale Studies to Support the Evaluation of

Remedial Alternatives for the PCB-Contaminated Sediments in New
Bedford Harbour, Massachusetts. Presentation at the Technology
Transfer Symposium for the Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
in the Great Lakes. International Joint Commission, Windsor,
Ontario, Canada.

Aggerholm, D.A., 1989. Sediment Regulation in Puget Sound. (99-109)

Proceed. XII World Dredging Congress, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.

Brannon, J.M., R.E. Hoeppel, T.C. Sturgis, I. Smith, Jr., and D.

Gunnison. 1986. Effectiveness of Capping in Isolating Dutch
Kills Sediment from Biota and the Overlying Water. Dredging
Operations Technical Support Program Miscell. Paper D-86-2. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.

Chapman, G.A., 1987. Establishing Sediment Criteria for

Chemicals-Regulatory Perspective. (355-377) in Fate and Effects
of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. (K.L. Dickson,
A.W. Maki and W.A. Brungs, eds.) Pergamon Press.

Gambrell, R.P.R.A. Khalid, and W.H. Patrick,Jr., 1978. Disposal

Alternatives for Contaminated Dredged Materials as a Management
Tool to Minimize Adverse Environmental Effects. Dredged Material
Research Program. Tech. Rept. DS-78-8. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.

Hampbel, H.J., D. Hankel, and H. Kroning. 1988. Thermal Treatment of

Dredged Material.

Jeftic, L. 1988. UNEP Guidelines for the Protection of the Marine

Environment Against Pollution from Land-based Sources: Their
Implementation in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the Canadie--
Conference on Marine Environmental Quality. 28 Feb. - 3 March,
Halifax, N.S. Canada. (P. Wells, and J. Gratwick, eds.).

Koba, H.Y. and Shiba, T. 1981. Test Dredging of Bottom Sediments in

Osaka Bay. Presentation at the 7th U.S.-Japanese Experts Meeting
on the Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances.
Proceedings published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water
Resources Support Centre.

Kroning, H., 1988. First Practical Experience with the Industrial-S-:.

Metha II Plant for the Mechanical Separation of Dredged Materia-
From the Hamburg Harbour.

Lazor, R. 1987. Comparative Studies of Disposal of Dredged Materials

from Black Rock Harbour, Connecticut. Presentation made at the
7th International Ocean Disposal Symposium, Wolfville, N.S.
Canada.
 - 82 -

MacKnight, S., 1984. Background Document for the Preparation of

Sediment Sampling Guidelines for the Characterization of Dredged
Sediments Under the Ocean Dumping Control Act. Report of
OceanChem Ltd. to Environment Canada.

Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, S.-L. Chan, M.S. Myers, J. T.
Lnadahgl, P.G. Prohaska, A.J. Friedman, L.D. Rhodes, D.C.
Burrows, W.D. Gronlund, and H.O. Hodgins. 1984. Chemical
Pollutants in Sediments and Diseases of Bottom-Dwelling Fish in
Puget Sound, Washington. Environmental Science and Technology,
18, 705-713.

McGrath, R., 1988. PCB-contaminated Sediments in New Bedford Harbour,

Massachusetts: Application of a Modeling Approach to Support
Selection of Remedial Alternatives. Presentation at the
Technology Transfer Symposium for the Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments in the Great Lakes. International Joint Commission,
Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

NRC (National Research Council). 1988. Draft Proceedings of a

Contaminated Marine Sediments Symposium/Workshop sponsored by the
Marine Board, Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediments. (Tampa,
Florida, June, 1988).

O'Connor, J. and S.G. O'Connor. 1983. Evaluation of the 1980 Capping

Operations at the Experimental Mud Dump Site, New York Bight Apex.
Dredging Operations Technical Support Program Tech. Rept. D-83-3.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station.

Oslo and Paris Commissions. 1984. The First Decade: International

Co-operation in Protecting Our Marine Environment. Oslo and Paris
Commissions. (377pg.)

Palermo, M.R., N.R. Francingues, C.R. Lee and R.K. Peddicord. 1986.
Evaluation of Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives: Test
Protocols and Contaminant Control Measures. (493-505) Proceed.
XI World Dredging Congress, Brighton, U.K.

Pequegnat, W.E., L.H. Pequegnat, B.M. James, E.A. Kennedy, R.R. Fay, and
A.D. Fredericks. 1981. Procedural Guide for Designation Surveys
of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites. Technical Report EL-
81-1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experimental
Station.

SAIC (Science Applications International Corp.). 1985. Removal and

Mitigation of Contaminated Sediments. Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory.
 - 83 -

Shields, F.D. and R.L. Montgomery. 1984. Fundamentals of Capping

Contaminated Dredged Material. (446-460) In, Dredging and Dredged
Material Disposal. (R.L. Montgomery and J.W. Leach, eds.) Amer.
Soc. Civil Engineering.

Truitt, C. 1986. The Duwamish Waterways Capping Demonstration

Project: Engineering Analysis and Results of Physical Monitoring.
Long-term Effects of Dredging Operation Program Tech. Rept.
D-86-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station.

United Nations. 1982. Convention for the Protection of the

Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution and its Related Protocols.
(45 pages).

UNEP, 1985. (United Nations Environmental Programme) Ad hoc Working

Group of Experts on the Protection of the Marine Environment
against Pollution from Land-based Sources. (UNEP/WG.120/3, 19
April). Also published in Environmental Policy and Law, 14/2/3,
1985.

Van Bochoven, G., C. Boodt, J.M. de Bruyne, H.J. de Haan, J.A. Hellema,
G. Ottevanger, W.D. Rokosh, C. Van Rijt, R.H.W. Van Vechgel,
T. Vellinga, and M. Veltman. 1988. Minimizing the Cost of
Maintenance Dredging. PIANC Bulletin, 63, 51- 94.

World Dredging and Marine Construction. May/June, 1989. Oakland

Disposal Option Proposed. (p. 6).
Attachments I and II

London Dumping Convention

 ATrACHMENT1

London Dumping Convention

Annex1

1 Organohalogen compounds.

2 Mercury and mercury compounds.

3 Cadmium and cadmium compounds.

4 Persistent plastics and other persistent synthetic materials, for

example, netting and ropes, which may float or may remain in suspension in the
sea in such a manner as to interfere materially with fishing, navigation or
other legitimate uses of the sea.

*5 Crude oil and its wastes, refined petroleum products, petroleum

distillate residues, and any mixtures containing any of these, taken on board
for the purpose of dumping.

6 High-level radio-active wastes or other high-level radio-active matter,

defined on public health, biological or other grounds, by the competent
internationalbody in this field, at present the InternationalAtomic Energy
Agency, as unsuitable for dumping at sea.

7 Materials in whatever form (e.g. solids, liquids, gases or in a living

state) produced for biological and chemical warfare.

8 The preceding paragraphs of this Annex do not apply to substances which

are rapidl.yrendered harmless by physical, chemical or biological processes in
the sea provided they do not:

(i) make edible marine organisms unpalatable, or

Oii) endanger human health or that of domestic animals.

The consultative procedure provided for under Article XIV should be followed
by a Party if there is doubt about the harmlessness of the substance.

9 This Annex does not apply to wastes or other materials (e.g. sewage
sludges and dredged spoils) containing the matters referred to in
paragraphs 1-5 above as trace contaminants. Such wastes shall be subject to
the provisions of Annexes II and III as appropriate.

* Paragraph 5 was amended by the FifLh Consultative Meeting of Contracting

Parties in 1980. The original text of paragraph 5 reads as follows:

"5 Crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oils,
hydraulic fluids, and any mixtures containing any of these, taken on
board for the purpose of dumping."

The amendment entered into force on 11 March 1981.

 - 2 -

**10 Paragraphs1 and 5 of this Annex do not apply to the disposal of wastes
or other matter referred to in these paragraphsby means of incinerationat
sea. Incinerationof such wastes or other matter at sea requires a prior
special permit. In the issue of special permits for incinerationthe
ContractingParties shall apply the Regulations for the Control of
Incinerationof Wastes and Other Matter at Sea set forth in the Addendum to
this Annex (which sha].].
constitute an integralpart of this Annex) and take
full account of the Technical Guidelineson the Control of Incinerationof
Wastes and Other Matter at Sea adopted by the ContractingParties in
consultation.

** Paragraph 10 was added to the original text by the Third Consultative

Meeting of ContractingParties in 1978. The amendmententered into force
on 11 March 1979.
 Annex 11

The fol]owing substances and materials requiring special care are listed
for the purposes of Article VI(l)(a).

A Wastes containing significant amounts of the matters listed below:

arsenic )
lead ) and their compounds
copper )
zinc )
organosilicon compounds
cyanides
fluorides
pesticides and their by-products not covered in Annex I.

B In the issue of permits for the dumping of large quantities of acids and
alkalis, consideration shall be given to the possible presence in such wastes
of the substances listed in paragraph A and to the following additional
substances:

beryllium
chromium ) and their compounds
nickel
vanadium )

C Containers, scrap metal and other bulky wastes liable to sink to the sea
bottom which may present a serious obstacle to fishing or navigation.

D Radio-active wastes or other radio-active matter not included in

Annex I. In the issue of permits for the dumping of this matter, the
Contracting Parties should take full account of the recommendations of the
competent international body in this field, at present the International
Atomic Energy Agency.

*E In the issue of special permits for the incineration of substances and

materials listed in this Annex, the Contracting Parties shall apply the
Regulations for the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter at Sea
set forth in the Addendum to Annex I and take full account of the Technical
Guidelines on the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter at Sea
adopted by the Contracting Parties in consultation, to the extent specified in
these Regulations and Guidelines.

**F Substances which, though of a non-toxic nature, may become harmful due to
the quantities in which they are dumped, or which are liable to seriously
reduce amenities.

* Additional paragraph adopted as an amendment by the Third Consultative

Meeting of Contracting Parties in 1978. The amendment entered into force
on 11 March 1979.

** Additional paragraph adopted as an amendment by the Fifth Consultative

Meeting of Contracting Parties in 1980. The amendment entered into force
on 11 March 1981.
 Annex III

Provisionsto be considered in establishingcriteriagoverning the issue

of permits for the dumping of matter at sea, taking into account Article
IV(2), include:

A - Characteristicsand compositionof the matter

I Total amount and average compositionof matter dumped (e.g. per year).

2 Form e.g. solid, sludge, liquid or gaseous.

3 Properties:physical (e.g. solubilityand density), chemical and

biochemical (e.g. oxygen demand, nutrients) and biological (e.g. presence of
viruses, bacteria,yeasts, parasites).

4 Toxicity.

5 Persistence:physical, chemical and biological.

6 Accumulationand biotransformationin biological.

materials or sediments.

7 Susceptibilityto physical, chemical and biochemicalchanges and

interactionin the aquatic environmentwith other dissolved organic and
inorganicmaterials.

8 Probabilityof production of taints or other changes reducing

marketabilityof resources (fish, shellfish,etc.).

B - Characteristicsof dumping site and method of deposit

1 Location (e.g. co-ordinatesof the dumping area, depth and distance from
the coast), location in relation to other areas (e.g. amenity areas, spawning,
nursery and fishing areas and exploitableresources).

2 Rate of disposal per specificperiod (e.g. quantity per day, per week,
per month).

3 Methods of packaging and containment,if any.

4 Initial dilution achievedby proposedmethod of release.

5 Dispersal characteristics(e.g. effects of currents,tides and wind on

horizontaltransport and verticalmixing).

6 Water characteristics,(e.g.temperature,pH, salinity, stratification,

oxygen indices of pollution - dissolved oxygen (DO), chemicaloxygen
oxygen demand (BOD) - nitrogen present in organic
demand (COD), biochemical.
and mineral form including ammonia, suspendedmatter, other nutrients and
productivity).
7 Bottom characteristics(e.g. topography,geochemical and geological
characteristicsand biologicalproductivity).

8 Existence and effects of other dumpings which have been made in the
dumping area (e.g. heavy metal backgroundreading and organic carbon content).

9 In issuing a permit for dumping, ContractingParties should consider

whether an adequate scientificbasis exists for assessing the consequencesof
such dumping, as outlined in this Annex, taking into account seasonal
variations.

C - General considerationsand conditions

1 Possible effects on amenities (e.g. presence of floating or stranded

material, turbidity,objectionableodour, discolourationand foaming).

2 Possible effects on marine life, fish and shellfish culture, fish stocks
and fisheries,seaweed harvesting and culture.

3 Possible effects on other uses of the sea, (e.g. impairmentof water

quality for industrialuse, underwater corrosion of structures,interference
with ship operations from floatingmaterials, interferencewith fishing or
navigationthrough deposit of waste or solid objects on the sea floor, and
protectionof areas of special importancefor scientificor conservation
purposes).

4 The practical availabilityof alternativeland-basedmethods of

treatment,disposal or elimination,or of treatment to render the matter less
harmful for dumping at sea.
 ANNEX 6

RESOLUTIONLDC.32(11)

AMENDMENTSTO THE GUIDANCE FOR THE APPLICATIONOF ANNEX III

(resolutionLDC.17(8))
(LDC 11/14, annex 4)

THE ELEVENTH CONSULTATIVEMEETING,

RECALLINGArticle I of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine

Pol.lution
by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, which provides that
ContractingParties shall individuallyand collectivelypromote the effective
control of all sources of pollution of the marine environment,

RECALLING FURTHER that amendmentsto Annex III had been adopted by

resolutionLDC.26(10) concerningproblemswhich had been encounteredwith
ill-definedwastes that had been proposed for disposal at sea, and the impact
of such wastes to marine life and human health,

EMPHASIZING the need that, in accordancewith Annex III to the

Convention, ContractingParties, before consideringthe dumping or
incinerationof wastes at sea, should ensure that every effort has been made
to determine the practical avail.ability
of alternativeland-basedmethods of
treatment, disposal or eliminationof the wastes concerned,

NOTING the discussionwhich took place within the ScientificGroup on

Dumping on the need for ContractingParties, when establishingcriteria
governing the issue of permits for the dumping of matter at sea, to be guided
in their applicationof the provisions of Annex III to the Convention,

HAVING CONSIDEREDthe Guidelines for the Implementationand Uniform

Interpretationof Annex III to the London Dumping Convention (resolution
LDC.17(8))and the proposed amendmentsto these guidelinesprepared by the
ScientificGroup on Dumping,
ANNEX 6
Page 2

1 ADOPTS amendmentsto sectionsA4 to A6, A9 and C4 of the Guidelines for

the Implementationand Uniform Interpretationof Annex III to the London
Dumping Convention,

2 RESOLVES that ContractingParties to the Convention shall take full

account of the amended Guidelinesfor the Implementationand Uniform
Interpretationof Annex III as shown in annex when consideringthe factors set
forth in that Annex prior to the issue of any permit for disposal and
incinerationof matter at sea.
 ANNEX 6
Page 3

ANNEX

GUITDELINESFOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND UNIFORM INTERPRETATION

OF ANNEX III* TO THE LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION

Article IV(2): Any permit shall be issued only after careful

consideration of all the factors set forth in
Annex III, including prior studies of the
characteristics of the dumping site, as set forth in
Sections B and C of that Annex.

ANNEX III: Provisions to be considered in establishing criteria

governing the issue of permits for the dumping of
matter at sea, taking into account Article IV(2),
include:

Interpretation:

Each authority or authorities designated in accordance with Article VI

for the issue of general and special permits for the disposal of wastes and
other matter at sea shall, when considering a permit application, carefully
study all the factors set out in Annex III. This includes the establishment
of procedures and criteria for:

1 deciding whether an application for sea disposal.should be pursued

in the light of the availability of land-based disposal or treatment
methods;

2 selecting a sea disposal site, incl.udingthe choice and collection

of relevant scientific data to assess the potential.hazards to human
health, harm to l.ivingresources and marine life, damage to
amenities or interference with other legitimate uses of the sea;

* For the disposal at sea of radioactive wastes additional

requirements recommended by the IAEA have to be taken into
account (INFCIRC/205/Add.l/Rev.l). For the control of incineration
of wastes at sea specific site selection criteria have been established
(Regulation 8 of Addendum to Annex I).
ANNEX 6
Page 4

3 choosing appropriatedisposalmethods and conditions;

4 developingan appropriatemonitoringprogramme.

The above mentioned criteria should enable permit applicationsto be

effectivelyassessed and likely environmentalhazards to be evaluated.

A - CHARACTERISTICSAND COMPOSITIONOF THE HATTER

1 Total amount and average compositionof matter [to be] dumped

(e.g. per year).
2 Form, e.g. solid, sludge, liquid, or gaseous.
3 Properties: physical (e.g. solubilityand density), chemical
and biochemical (e.g. oxygen demand, nutrients)and biological
(e.g. presence of viruses, bacteria, yeasts, parasites).

Interpretation:

In order to assess environmentaltransport and fate, includingpotential

effects on water quality and biota, the total amount of wastes proposed to be
dumped within a time period, and the physical, chemical and biological
compositionof the waste should be known. The first step for the
characterizationof a waste or other matter proposed for dumping at a site
should be the collectionof existing data on the waste compositionor a waste
analysis.

This should not mean that every waste should be subjected to exhaustive
chemical analysis to establish the concentrationsof a standardwide-ranging
list of chemical elements or compounds. Knowledgeof the raw materials and
production processes used may often provide a key to the probable composition
of the waste. A selective analysismay then be sufficientfor a preliminary
assessment. As a minimum, it should be establishedwhether any Annex I or
Annex II materials are present.
 ANNEX 6
Page 5

The analysis should include appropriatemeasurementsof the composition

of major components. In cases where anthropogenicchemicalsof high toxicity
are known or suspected to be involved, those minor componentswhich are
reasonably identifiableshould be measured.

In additiondata should, as appropriate,be obtained on physical,

chemical.and biologicalproperties of the waste or other matter, such as:

- Solubility
- Percent solids
- Density (specificgravity) of bulk matter, its liquid and particle
phases
- Grain size fractions of total solid phase (e.g. clay-silt/sand-gravel
fractions of dredged material)
- pH
- Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
- Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
- Nutrients
- Microbiological components.

4 Toxicity,
5 Persistence:physical.,chemical and biological,
6 Accumulationand biotransformationin biologicalmaterials or
sediments.

Interpretation:

If the chemical analysis of the wastes shows the presenceof

substanceswhose biologicaleffects are not well known, or if there is any
doubt as to the exact compositionor propertiesof the waste, if may be
necessary to carry out suitable test proceduresfor toxicity, persistence,
bioavailabilityand bioaccumulation,which may include the following:
ANNEX 6
Page 6

1 acute toxicity tests on phytoplankton,crustaceansor molluscs,

fish, or other such organisms as may be appropriate;

2 chronic toxicity tests capable of evaluatinglong-term sublethal

effects, such as bioassays covering an entire life cycle;

3 tests to determine the potential for bioavailabilityand

bioaccumulationof the substancescontained in the waste and, if
appropriate,the potential for eventual elimination. The test
organisms should be those most likely to bioaccumulatethe
substancesconcerned; and

4 test for determiningthe persistenceof substancescontained in

the waste. The potential for degradabilityof these substances
should be determinedusing bacteria and water typical of the
proposed dumping site. The tests should attempt to reflect the
conditions at the proposed dumping site.

If appropriate,the test proceduresdescribed above should be carried

out separatelywith the solid, suspended and/or liquid phases of wastes
proposed for sea disposal.

A number of substances,when entering the marine environment,are

known to be altered by biologicalprocesses to more toxic substances. This
should be taken into particularaccount when the various tests mentioned
above are performed.
 ANNEX 6
Page 7

7 Susceptibilityto physical, chemical and biochemicalchanges

and interaction in the aquatic environmentwith other dissolved
organic and inorganicmaterials

Interpretation:

Substances introducedinto the sea may be rapidly rendered harmless by

physical, chemical and biochemicalprocesses but others may be changed to
products with more hazardous propertiesthan those of the original
substances. In these latter cases, it may be appropriateto carry out the
tests outlined in paragraph A6 above with the anticipatedproducts.

8 Probabilityof productionof taints or other changes reducing

marketabilityof resources (fish, shellfish,etc.).

Interpretation:

In evaluatingthe possible effects of the waste concerned on marine

biota, particular attention should be paid to those substanceswhich are known
to accumulatein marine organismswith the result that seafood is tainted and
rendered unpalatable. In many cases there might be a suspicion about the
tainting propertyof a substancewithout the availabilityof firm data. In
these cases a taste panel will have to determine threshold limits, if any, of
the tainting propertiesof the substance concerned.

"Other changes reducing the marketabilityof resources"referred to in

paragraph 8 of Section A include discolourationof fish flesh, and fish
diseases such as fin rot and tumours.
AANNE26
Pag 8

9 In issuing a permit for dumping, ContractingParties should consider

whether an adequate scientificbasis exists concerning
characteristicsand compositionof the matter to be dumped to assess
the impact of the matter to marine life and to human health.*

Interpretation:

in consideringdisposal at sea of ill-definedwastes or waste mixtures

from multiple sources, every effort should be made to obtain data on their
chemical, physical and biologicalcharacteristicsto assess their
environmentaltransport,fate and effects. If a waste is so poorly
characterizedthat proper assessment (using the foregoing guidelines)cannot
he made of its potential impacts in the environment,then that waste should
not be dumped at sea.

B - CHARACTERISTICS OF DUMPING SITE AND METHODOF DEPOSIT

Matters relating to dumpsite selection criteria are addressed in

greater detail in a study prepared by GESAMP** (Reportsand Studies
No.16: ScientificCriteria for the Selection of Waste Disposal
Sites at Sea, IMO 1982) which should be considered in conjunction
with these guidelines.

1 Location (e.g. co-ordinatesof the dumping area, depth and

distance from the coast), location in relation to other areas
(e.g. amenity areas, spawning, nursery and fishing areas and
exploitableresources).

Interpretation:

Basic site characterizationinformationto be consideredby national

authoritiesat a very early stage of assessmentof a new site should include

* The inclusionof paragraph 9 in section A of Annex III has been approved

in principle and the Twelfth ConsultativeMeeting has been designated for
its formal adoption.

* IMO/FAO/UNESCO/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP
Joint Group of Experts on the
ScientificAspects of Marine Pollution.
 ANNEX 6
Page 9

the co-ordinatesof the dumping area (latitude,longitude),as well as

its location with regard to:

- distance to nearest coastline

- recreational areas
- spawning and nursery areas
- known migration routes of fish or marine mammals
- sport and commercialfishing areas
- areas of natural beauty or significantcultural or historical
importance
- areas of special scientificor biological importance(marine
sanctuaries)
- shipping lanes
- military exclusion zones
- engineeringuses of seafloor (e.g. potential or ongoing seabed min'ing,
undersea cables, desalinationor energy conversionsites).

2 Rate of disposal per specific period (e.g. quantity per day,

per week, per month).

Interpretation:

Although the amounts of matter to be dumped (e.g. per year) are

consideredunder paragraph Al above, many operations,e.g. those related `to
dredging, are of shorter periods. In order to assess the capacityof the area
for receiving a given type of material the anticipatedloading rates
(e.g. per day) or in the case of existing sites, the actual loading rates
(frequencyof operations and quantities of wastes or other matter disposed of
at each operation per time period) shoul.dbe taken into consideration.
ANNEX 6
Page 10

3 Methods of packaging and containment,if any.

4 Initial dilution achieved by proposedmethod of release.

Interpretation:

The data to be consideredunder this item should include informationon:

- type, size and form of packaging and containmentunits

- presence of any Annex I or Annex II substancesas packagingmaterial
or in any matrix that might be used
- marking and labelling of packages
- disposalmethod (e.g. jettisoningover ship's side; discharge of
liquids and sludges through pipes, pumping rates, number and location
of discharge pipe outlets (under or above waterline,water depth),
etc.). In this connexion the length and speed of the vessel when
dischargingwastes or other matter should be used to establish the
initial dilution.

5 Dispersal characteristics(e.g. effects of currents, tides and

wind on horizontaltransport and verticalmixing).

6 Water characteristics(e.g. temperature,pH, salinity,

stratification,oxygen indices of pollution - dissolved oxygen
(DO), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemicaloxygen demand
(BOD) - nitrogen present in organic and mineral form including
ammonia, suspendedmatter, other nutrients and productivity).

Interpretation:

For the evaluationof dispersal characteristicsdata should be obtained

on the following:

- water depths (maximum,minimum, mean)

- water stratificationin various seasons and weather conditions (depth
and seasonal variation of pycnocline)
 ANNEX 6
Page 11

- tidal period, orientation of tidal ellipse, velocitiesof minor and

major axis
- mean surface drift (net): direction,velocity
- mean bottom drift (net): direction,velocity
- storm (wave) induced bottom currents (velocities)
- wind and wave characteristics,average number of storm days per year
- concentrationand compositionof suspended solids.

Where the chemical.compositionof the waste warrants, it may be

appropriateto eval.uatepH, suspended solids, persistentorganic chemicals,
metals, nutrients and microbiologicalcomponents. BOD and COD or organic
carbon determinationsin the suspendedor dissolved phase, together with
oxygen measurements,may also be appropriatewhere organic wastes or
nutrients are concerned.

7 Bottom characteristics(e.g. topography, geochemicaland

geologicalcharacteristicsand biologicalproductivity).

Interpretation:

Naps and bathymetric charts should be consulted and specific topographic

features which may affect the dispersal of wastes (e.g. marine canyons) should
be identified.

The geochemicalobservationsof sediments in and around the disposal site

should be related to the type of waste(s) involved. The range of chemical
constituentsshould be the same as that provided for the characterizationof
the waste or other matter, with the minimum range of data set out in
paragraph Al above.

In areas where wastes may reach the bottom, sediment structure (i.e. the
distributionof gravel, sand, silt and clay) as well as benthic and epibenthic
community characteristicsshould be consideredfor the site area.
ANNEX 6
Page 12

Mobility of sediments due to waves, tides or other currents should be

considered in any waste disposal site assessments. The possibilityof seismic
activities in the area under considerationshould be investigated,in
particularwhen hazardouswastes in packaged form are concerned. The
distributionof sediment types in an area provides basic informationas to
whether dumped solids with certain characteristicswill accumulateat a site
or be dispersed.

Sorption/desorptionprocesses under the range of dump site redox and pH

conditions,with particular reference to exchanges between dissolved and fine
particulate phases, are relevant to the evaluationof the accumulative
properties of the area for the componentsof the waste proposed for dumping
and for their potential release to overlyingwaters.

8 Existence and effects of other dumpings which have been made in

the dumping area (e.g. heavy metal backgroundreading and
organic carbon content).

Interpretation:

The basic assessmentto be carried out of a site, either a new or an

existing one, shall,include the considerationof possible effects that might
arise by the increaseof certain waste constituentsor by interaction(e.g.
synergysticeffects)with other substancesintroducedin the area, either by
other dumpings or by river input and discharges from coastal areas, by
exploitationareas, and maritime transport as well as through the atmosphere.
The existing stress on biologicalcommunities as a result of such activities
should be evaluated before any new or additionaldisposal operationsare
established. The possible future uses of the sea area should be kept under
consideration.

Informationfrom baseline and monitoring studies at already established

dumping sites will be important in this evaluationof any new dumping activity
at the same site or nearby.
 ANNEX 6
Page 13

9 In issuing a permit for dumping,Contracting Parties should

considerwhether an adequate scientificbasis exists for
assessingthe consequencesof such dumping, as outlined in this
Annex, taking into account seasonal variations.

Interpretation:

When a given location is first under considerationas a candidatedisposa'

site, the existing data basis should be evaluated with a view to establishing
whether the main characteristicsare known in sufficientdetail or accurately
enough for reliablemodelling of waste effects. Many parameters are so
variable in space and time that a comprehensiveseries of observationhave to
be designed to quantify the key properties of an area over the various seasons.

If at any time, monitoring studies demonstrate that existing disposal

sites do not satisfy these criteria, alternativedisposal sites or methods
should be considered.

C - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONSAND CONDITIONS

1 Possible effects on amenities (e.g. presence of floating or

strandedmaterial, turbidity,objectionableodour, discolouration
and foaming).

2 Possible effects on marine life, fish and shell fish culture,

fish stocks and fisheries, seaweed harvesting and culture.

Interpretation:

Particular attention should be given to those waste constituentswhich

float on the surface or which, in reactionwith sea water may lead to floating
substancesand which, because they are confined to a two-dimensionalrather
than a three-dimensionalmedium, disperse very slowly. The possibilityof
reaccumulationof such substancescaused by the presence of surface
ANNEX 6
Page 14

convergenceswhich may lead to interferenceswith amenitiesas well as with

fisheries and shipping should be investigated.

Informationon the nature and extent of commercialand recreational

fishery resources and activitiesshould be gathered.

Body burdens of persistent toxic substances (and, in the case of

shellfish,pathogens) in selectedmarine life and, in particular, commercial
food species from the dumping area should be established.

Certain grounds although not in use for fishing may be importantto fish
stocks as spawning, nursery or feeding areas, and the effects of sea disposal
on these grounds should be considered.

The effects which waste disposal in certain areas could have on the
habitats of rare, vulnerable or endangeredspecies should be recognized.

Besides toxicologicaland bioaccumulationeffects of waste constituents

other potential impacts on marine life, such as nutrient enrichment,oxygen
depletion,turbidity,modificationof the sediment compositionand blanketing
of the sea floor, should be addressed.

It should also be taken into account that disposal at sea of certain

substancesmay disrupt the physiologicalprocesses used by fish for detection
and may mask natural characteristicsof sea water or tributary streams, thus
confusing migratory species which consequentlylose their direction,go
unspawned or fail to find food.
 ANNEX 6
Page 15

3 Possible effects on other uses of the sea (e.g. impairmentof

water quality for industrialuse, underwatercorrosion of
structures,interferencewith ship operationsfrom floating
materials, interferencewith fishing or navigationthrough
deposit of waste or solid objects on the sea floor and
protectionof areas of special importancefor scientificor
conservationpurposes).

Interpretation:

Considerationof possible effects on the uses of the sea as outlined in

paragraph C3 should include interferenceswith fishing, such as the damaging
or fouling of fishing gear. Any possibility of excluding the future uses of
the sea dumping area for other resources,such as water use for industrial
purposes, navigation,erection of structures,mining, etc., should be taken
fully into account.

Areas of special importance include those of interest for scientific

research or conservationareas and distinctivehabitats of limited
distribution (such as seabird rookeries,kelp beds or coral reefs);
informationshould also be provided on all distinctivehabitats in the
vicinity of the proposed site which might be affectedby the material to be
dumped. Attention should also be given to geological and physiographical
formationsof outstandinguniversal value from the point of view of science,
conservationor natural beauty.
ANNEX 6
Page 16

4 The practical availabilityof alternativeland-basedmethods of

treatment,disposal or elimination,or of treatment to render the
matter less harmful for dumping at sea.

Interpretation:

1 Dumping of wastes and other matter at sea

Before consideringthe dumping of matter at sea every effort should be

made to determine the practical availabilityof alternativeland-basedmethods
of treatment,disposal or elimination,or of treatment to render the matter
less harmful.for dumping at sea.

The practical availabilityof other means of disposal should be

considered in the light of a comparativeassessmentof:

- Human health risks

- Environmental costs
- Hazards (includingaccidents)associatedwith treatment,packaging,
transport and disposal
- Economics (includingenergy costs)
- Exclusion of future uses of disposal areas,

for both sea disposal and the alternatives.

If the foregoing analysis shows the ocean al.ternative

to be less
preferable,a ]icence for sea disposal should not be given.

2 Incinerationof wastes and other matter at sea

Recognizingthe provisionsof Regulation 2(2) of the Regulations for the

Control.of Incinerationof Wastes and Other Matter at Sea, the appropriate
 ANNEX 6
Page 17

authorities should ensure that, before consideringthe incinerationof wastes

at sea, every effort has been made to determine the practical availabilityof
alternativeland-basedmethods of treatment,disposal or eliminationof the
wastes concerned.

Accordingly,authorities should take appropriatesteps to ensure that the

generatorsof those wastes that are proposed for incinerationat sea have
applied the generally accepted hierarchy of waste management in their
assessment of alternativetechnologies.

The hierarchy is described as follows:

Existing and developingmethods for managing hazardouswastes are

commonly organized into a hierarchy that accords preferred status to
methods that reduce risk by reducing the quantity and degree of hazard of
a waste.

The highest tier in the hierarchy includes those methods - collectively

referred to as reduction - that actually avoid the generationof waste.
Techniquesthat reuse or recover wastes after they are generatedoccupy
the next tier. Techniques that treat or destroy wastes are preferred
over those that merely contain or actually dispersewastes into the
environment.

Specific technologicalapproacheswhich have been shown to achieve

significantreductionsin the amounts of hazardouswaste include process and
equipment changes, chemical substitution,product reformulation,as well as a
and housekeepingchanges as well as waste
variety of maintenance,operational.
reuse.

It should, however, be recognizedthat some countries producing wastes

that need to be destroyed by incineration,either do not possess suitable
land-based incineratorsor have limited capacity at such facilities.
Furthermore,export of wastes to land-based incineratorsin other countries
ANNEX 6
Page 18

may be restrictedby legal, economicor other factors including available

capacities and national.
priorities. These circumstancesmay, in certain
cases, constitutegrounds for concludingthat practical alternativesto
incinerationat sea are not available. Nevertheless,permits for incineration
at sea should not be issued unless conformitywith the Regulations for the
Control of Incinerationof Wastes and Other Matter at Sea, and the Technical
Guidelines thereto,can be assured.

In applyingthe hierarchy of waste management, alternativesto

incinerationof wastes at sea should also be consideredin the light of
comparative assessmentof:

- Human health risks;

- Environmental costs;
- Hazards (includingaccidents)associatedwith treatment,packaging,
transport and disposal;
- Economics (includingenergy costs);
- Exclusion of future uses of incinerationsites

for both incinerationat sea and the alternatives.

If the foregoing analysis shows the ocean alternativeto be less

preferable, a licence for incinerationat sea should not be given.

Where it is determinedthat alternativesto incinerationat sea are, in

practice, not available,emphasis should be placed on the introductionof
improvedwaste management procedureswith particularattention being given to
the applicationof the hierarchy of waste management described above. If it
is predicted that, despite the applicationof waste management procedures,
arisings of wastes requiring incinerationare likely to be maintained, or to
increase significantly,considerationshould be given to establishingsuitable
land-based alternatives,or increasingtheir capacity, to meet national
requirements.
 ATTACHMENT2
ANNEX 29

RESOLUTION LDC.23(1O)

GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE ANNEXES

TO THE DISPOSAI.OF DREDGED MATERIAL
(LDC 10/15, annex 2)

THE TENTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING,

RECALLING Article I of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine

Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, which provides that
Contracting Parties shall individually and collectively promote the effective
control of all sources of pollution in the marine environment,

RECOGNIZING that the major part of the sediments dredged from the
waterways of the world either are either not polluted or may possess
mitigative properties that diminish the development of adverse environmental
impacts after disposal at sea,

RECOGNIZING FURTHER that the major cause of the contamination of

sediments requiring to be dredged is the emission of hazardous substances into
internal and coastal waters and that problems will continue until such
emissions are controlled at source,

RECOGNIZING ALSO the need for maintaining open shipping lanes and
harbours for maritime transport and that undue burden should be avoided with
regard to the interpretation and application of the provisions of the
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter, 1972 (London Dumping Convention, 1972),

RECALLING that the Eighth Consultative Meeting by resolution LDC.17(8)

adopted Guidelines for the Application of Annex III to the London Dumping
Convention with a view to providing guidance for the uniform interpretation of
the factors to be considered in establishing criteria governing the issue of
permits for disposal at sea,

RECOGNIZING that for the disposal of dredged material at sea not all of
the factors listed in Annex III and their corresponding interpretations are
applicable,
ANNEX 29
Page 2

RECALLING FURTHER that the Fourth Consultative Meeting adopted Interim

Guidelines for the Implementation of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex I to the
Convention with a view to providing guidance for the interpretation of certain
conditions under which permits may be issued for disposal at sea of hazardous
substances for which sea disposal is otherwise prohibited,

NOTING the discussion which took place within the Scientific Group on
Dumping on the need to prepare specific guidelines for the application of the
Annexes to the Convention with regard to the disposal. at sea of dredged
material,

HAVING CONSIDERED the draft Guidelines for the Application of the Annexes
to the Disposal of Dredged Material at Sea prepared by the Scientific Group on
Dumping,

1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for the Application of the Annexes to the Disposal
of Dredged Material at Sea as set out at Annex here to;

2. RESOLVES that Contracting Parties to the Convention when assessing the

suitability of dredged material for disposal at sea shall take full account of
the Guidelines for the Application of the Annexes to the Disposal of Dredged
Material at Sea;

3. AGREES to review the Guidelines for the Application of the Annexes to

the Disposal of Dredged Material at Sea within five years time in light of
experience gained by Contracting Parties with these guidelines, in particular
with regard to the application of the terms "trace contaminants", "rapidly
rendered harmless" and "special care" as defined for disposal of dredged
material at sea;

4. REQUESTS Contracting Parties to submit to the Organization for

distribution to all Contracting Parties information on their experience
gained with the above guidelines, includingcase studies;

5. CALLS UPON Contracting Parties to take all practicable steps to reduce

pollution of marine sediments, includingcontrol of emissions of hazardous
substances into internal and coastal waters.
5348v/jeh
 ANNEX 29
Page 3

ANNEX

GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE ANNEXES TO THE

DISPOSAL OF DREDGED KATERIAL

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In accordance with article IV(l)(a) of the Convention, Contracting

Parties shall prohibit the dumping of dredged material containing substances
listed in Annex I unless the dredged material can be exempted under
paragraph 8 (rapidly rendered harmless) or paragraph 9 (trace contaminants) of
Annex I.

1.2 Furthermore, in accordance with article IV(1)(b) of the Convention,

Contracting Parties shall issue special permits for the dumping of dredged
material.containing substances described in Annex II and, in accordance with
Annex 11, shall ensure that special care is taken in the disposal at sea of
such dredged material.

1.3 In the case of dredged material not subject to the provisions of

articles IV(l)(a) and IV(l)(b), Contracting Parties are required under
article IV(l)(c) to issue a general permit prior to dumping.

1.4 Permits for the dumping of dredged material shall be issued in accordance
with article IV(2) which requires careful consideration of all the factors set
forth in Annex III. In this regard, the Eighth Consultative Meeting in
adopting Guidelines for the Implementation and Uniform Interpretationof
Annex III (resolutionLDC.17(8)) resolved that Contracting Parties shall take
full account of these Guidelines in considering the factors set forth in that
Annex prior to the issue of any permit for the dumping of waste and other
matter at sea.

1.5 With regard to the implementation of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex I to

the Convention, the Fourth Consultative Meeting adopted Interim Guidelines
(LDC IV/12, annex 5) which provide advice concerning the conditions under
which permits may be issued for dumping wastes containing Annex I substances,
and concerning the evaluation of the terms "trace contaminants" and "rapidly
rendered harmless"
ANNEX 29
l'age 4

1.6 Notwithstanding thc general guidance reterrea to in paragraphs i.4

and 1.5 above, subsequent deliberations by Contracting Parties have determined
that the specia].characteristics of dredged material warrant separate
guidelines to be used when assessing the suitability of dredged material for
disposal.at sea. Such guidelines would be used by regulatory authorities in
the interpretation of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex I, and in the application of
the considerations under Annex Ill. These Guidelines for the Application of
the Annexes to the Disposal of Dredged Material have been prepared for this
purpose and, more specifically, are intended to serve the following functions:

.1 to replace the Interim Guidelines for the Implementation of

paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex I as they apply to dredged material; and

.2 to replace section A of the Guidelines for the Implementation and

Uniform Interpretation of Annex II (resolution LDC.17(8)).

2 CONDITIONS lUNDERWHICH PERMITS FOR DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIAL

MAY BE ISSIJED

2.1 A Contracting Party may after consideration of the factors contained in

Annex III issue a general permit for the dumping of dredged material if:

.1 although Annex I substances are present, they are either determined

to be present as a "trace contaminant" or to be "rapidly rendered
harmless" by physical, chemical or biological processes in the sea
provided they do not:
- make edible organisms unpalatable, or
- endanger human health or that of domestic animals; and
.2 the dredged material contains less than significant amounts* of
substances listed in part A of Annex II and meets the requirements
of part C of Annex TI.

* The following interpretationsof "significant amounts" were agreed by the

Eighth Consultative Meeting:

Pesticides and their by-products 0.05% or more by weight in

not covered by Annex I and the waste or other matter
lead and lead compounds:

All other substances listed in Annex II, 0.1% or more by weight in

paragraph A: the waste or other matter
 ANNEX 29
Page 5

2.2 If the conditionsunder 2.1.2 above are not met a ContractingParty may
issue a special permit provided the condition under 2.1.1 has been met. Such
a special permit should either prescribe certain special care measures and/or
give limiting conditionsprescribedby national authoritiesto diminishthe
pollution source.

2.3 The assessmentprocedures and tests described in the following sections

are consideredto apply equally to the interpretationof "harmlessness"
(paragraph8 of Annex I) and "trace contaminants"(paragraph9 of Annex I)
when applied in associationwith sectionsB and C of the Annex III guidelines.

3 ASSESSMENTOF THE CHARACTERISTICSAND COMPOSITIONOF DREDGED MATERIAL

This section replaces the Guidelines for the Implementationand Uniform

Interpretationof Annex III, part A, and provides an interpretationfor the
assessmentof dredged material. It should be consideredin conjunctionwith
parts B and C of the Guidelines on Annex TII.

1 Total amount and average compositionof matter dumped

(e.g. per year)
2 Form, e.g. solid, sludge, liquid, or gaseous

For all dredged material to be disposed of at sea the following

informationshould be obtained:

- gross wet tonnage per site (per unit time)

- method of dredging
- visual determinationof sedimentcharacteristics
(clay-silt/sand/gravel/boulder)

In the absence of appreciablepollut30n

o materialmay
be exempted from the testing referred to i. -uidelinesin the
ANNEX 29
Page 6

following section if it meets one of the criteria listed below; in such

cases the provisionsof Annex III sectionsB and C should be taken into
account:

.1 Dredged material is composed predominantlyof sand, gravel or

rock and the material is found in areas of high current or wave
energy such as streams with large bed loads or coastal areas
with shifting bars and channels;

.2 Dredged material is for beach nourishmentor restorationand is

composed predominantlyof sand, gravel, or shell with particle
sizes compatiblewith material on the receiving beaches; and

.3 In the absence of appreciablepollution sources,dredged

material not exceeding 10,000 tonnes per year from small,
isolated and single dredging operations,e.g. at marinas or
small fishing harbours,may be exempted. Larger quantitiesmay
be exempted if the material proposed for disposal at sea is
situated away from known existing and historical sources of
pollution so as to provide reasonable assurance that such
material has not been contaminated.

3 Properties: physical (e.g. solubilityand density),

chemical and biochemical (e.g. oxygen demand, nutrients)
and biological (e.g. presence of viruses, bacteria,
yeasts, parasites)

For dredged material that does not meet the above exemptions,further
informationwill be needed to fully assess the impact. Sufficient
informationmay be available from existing sources,for example from
field observationson the impact of similar material at similar sites or
from previous test data on similar material tested not more than five
years previously.
 ANNEX 29
Page 7

In the absence of this information,chemical characterizationwill be

necessary as a first step to estimate gross loadings of contaminants,
This should not mean that each dredged material should be subjected
to exhaustivechemical analysis to establish the concentrationsof a
standardwide-ranginglist of chemical elements or compounds;knowledge
of local dischargesor other sources of pollution, supportedby a
selective analysis,may often be used to assess the likelihoodof
contamination. Where such an assessmentcannot be made the levels of
Annex I and II substancesmust be establishedas a minimum.

Where this informationcoupled with knowledge of the receiving area,

indicatesthat the material to be dumped is substantiallysimilar in
chemical and physical properties to the sediments at the proposed
disposal site, testing described in the following section might not be
necessary.

Where chemical analysis is appropriate,further informationmay also be

useful in interpretingthe results of chemical testing, such as:

- density;
- per cent solids (moisturecontent);
- grain size analysis (% sand, silt, clay); and
- total organic carbon (TOC).

In addition, there are several other parameterswhich may facilitatethe

interpretationof the behaviour,fate and effects of dredged material
(e.g. sedimenttransport,pollutant transformation,sedimentmitigative
properties).

Sampling of sediments from the proposed dredging site should represent

the vertical and horizontaldistributionand variabilityof the material
to be dredged. Samples should be spaced so as to identify and
differentiatebetween non-contaminatedand contaminatedlocations.
ANNEX 29
Page 8

4 Toxicity
5 Persistence: physical, chemical and biological
6 Accumulationand biotransformationin biological
materials or sediments

The purpose of testing under this section is to establish whether the

disposal at sea of dredged material containingAnnex I and II substances
might cause undesirableeffects, especiallythe possibilityof chronic or
acute toxic effects on marine organisms or human health, whether or not
arising from their bioaccumulationin marine organisms and especiallyin
food species.

The following biological test proceduresmight not be necessary if the

previous characterizationof the material and of the receiving area
allows an assessmentof the environmentalimpact. If, however,the
previous analysis of the material shows the presence of Annex I or
Annex II substances in considerablequantitiesor of substanceswhose
biological effects are not understood,and if there is concern for
antagonisticor synergisticeffects of more than one substance,or if
there is any doubt as to the exact compositionor propertiesof the
material, it may be necessary to carry out suitable biologicaltest
procedures. These procedures should be carried out on the solid phase
with bottom dwelling macrofauna and may include the following:

- acute toxicity tests;

- chronic toxicity tests capable of evaluating long-term sub--lethal
effects, such as bioassays covering an entire life cycle; and
- tests to determine the potential for bioaccumulationof the
substance of concern.
 ANNEX 29
Page 9

Substances in dredged material, when entering the marine environment

may undergo physical and chemical alterationthat directly affects the
release, retention,transformationand/or toxicity of these substances.
This shall be taken into particular account when carrying out the various
tests mentioned above and when interpretingthe results of these tests
for actual or future dumping site conditions.

7 Susceptabilityto physical, chemical and biochemical

changes and interactionin the aquatic environmentwith
other dissolved organic and inorganicmaterials

Contaminantsin dredged material, after dumping,may be altered by

physical, chemical and biochemicalprocesses to more or to less harmful
substances. The susceptabilityof dredged material to such changes
should be considered in the light of the eventual fate and effects of the
dredged material. In this context field verificationof predicted
effects is of considerableimportance.

8 Probabilityof productionof taints or other changes

reducingmarketabilityof resources (fish, shellfish,etc.)

Proper dump site selection rather than a testing applicationis

recommended. Site selection to minimize impact on commercialor
recreationalfishery areas is a major considerationin resource
protectionand is covered in greater detail in section C2 of Annex III.
ANNEX 29
Page 10

4 DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

4.1 Ultimately, the problems of contaminated dredged material disposal can be

controlled effectively only by control of point source discharges to waters
from which dredged material is taken. Until this objective is met, the
problems of contaminated dredged material may be addressed by using disposal
management techniques.

4.2 The term "disposal management techniques" refers to actions and processes
through which the impact of Annex I or Annex II substances contained in
dredged material may be reduced to, or controlled at, a level which does not
constitute a hazard to human health, harm to living resources, damage to
amenities or interference with legitimate uses of the sea. In this context
they may, in certain circumstances,constitute additional methods by which
dredged material containing Annex I substances may be "rapidly rendered
harmless" and which may constitute "special care" in the disposal of dredged
material containing Annex II substances.

4.3 Relevant techniques include the utilization of natural physical, chemical

and biological processes as they affect dredged material in the sea; for
organic material these may include physical, chemical or biochemical
degradation and/or transformation that result in the material becoming
non-persistent, non-toxic and/or non-biologicallyavailable. Beyond the
considerations of Annex III sections B and C, disposal management techniques
may include burial on or in the sea floor followed by clean sediment capping,
utilization of geochemical interactions and transformationsof substances in
dredged material when combined with sea water or bottom sediment, selection of
special sites such as in abiotic zones, or methods of containing dredged
material in a stable manner (including on artificial islands).

4.4 lltilizationof such techniques must be carried out in full conformity

with other Annex III considerations such as comparative assessment of
alternative disposal options and these guidelines should always be associated
with post-disposalmonitoring to assess the effectiveness of the technique and
the need for any follow-up management action.
 Distributors of World Banit Publications
CoiCa l, SIAGIL Akoko
c c Wjlippm INFC Mardt-Oml- aiot-SA.
Glaiai* Gnat P.O. BE 123 Aparda P1 2259 CiAt 27
Flaids 165,446 Hr-Ofr 453}46S 553101 2451D3Mitdlaid
133 EnAnas Heltid 10

A Zi ?B1 0 3A,5621LIASd;lll9EI -i;

YSOIIOCCO
i:B..............9dl;egM.i1az:ao)a
~~~~~LCir,t
kLrvi-Aoar ARDOR
Coa deCa e51
I-VASOLOMON ISLANIDSY, aid XL 12 la-,Bd. Rncd'Atf. 05(3 a
VANUATU, AND WESTERN SAMOA 60, awn± 4'£n. a:s -
DA.EaodIol4oJVt 75116PeD SWLK-5 kAD TIHE MALIVES
BMSWaeRoad IIUflIRIL4ŽCSSAn 1 aaaaRoohliop
M aaiRl2 6131247M a.6 LEE1'VUCGR kaOl-pukiflsiak. P.C.v JA244
V1t.A. UlO-Velg P.O. B, 14 I54, S Chdtiapalam A. Gdi-
P.ppdrAt 5 720&EAI nThan6 alksi
AURTR2A l-WO Sin31 CtLAb 2
Slatd and Co. HEWZ6At,AN
Gab=a3l Clt}!S-:a Hlwaig
1Ay cia' efnS-cvior 5-76sw-64
A-lIOIl Wint 1(852 .ProkssLgileae
24,1.7 =pp
S&.-I M.S. -N - R Fattez FPadalaeeg
5A51AI8N AtkSa11S Auda;-d Rqeein:g4at 12, BS 16336
Eatrl zlzd C-Sala-y
S-1 27 PSodhdd
AamdawLld. Gli'AII4MALA __
P.O. pax 22103 lzrzzw Piedo Santa pt-.,, Lbiaod F 4l
Metana, Toasia 317 Se. Cane 7-55 ' Cn tgJi&U Wueae tW 5lm,
AB
7aI Paivate l49 5ax Ba: 204uL
ESAIGLDAIIL3 GoataaCity 50423Stod&kd
-dm
M Indsalil Devdq,aat
Aasan Resdiy (MIDAS? HONGI 1O(1G, MACACO S
7Qw 6WTaZXRLAND
aL*e 5, Red 16 Asal 713:d. H 1r ae Pa-t 451w
l13/aaoodi RfAa MongkokPe o
GRnDtpmt Ub e PaPsyt
1ake 1259 Bite Sftew No. 37 PO. So. 612S13 ao C6na C-GaM
Megkaa IXewR N-Wl Co2a 6 CaepWe 381
Batik ifluutot
:~ B KB
1 CR12114 C all
154 NMr Ahemd Stank OMAN
Cbitager1S4D0 SIuNOSE M MAtaatn Ser-n 07t
K1(6h= P.O. S 1613, So Siapoebt ia-le PaYt
76,4XD Arena P.O. B" 149 Mustt 5a deaAb.aen mts
164d. 1389Sisialioa 62 Caaepaudal 3312
i39B 6 :b51032524 CH 1G02Lmnoaooe
BBLGIUM INDDIA ia Sak Ageamy
PaiaIn do Naldatati- Allied Pablih -ta . Ltd. S6, ShhhQaDidvA-M
TM
TA24ZAl5tA
Av. du Rot M2M 751 Most Road P.O. ha. 729 CIAd -i-tp Pea
1060 Bnas Madan - 31002 OLhake 3 P.O. Baa 329
DRAZIL Gar ta Stlas
Bnot1ks PBRU
Pubtliese Tcaid Itedanas 15J3N IeHdi. Meg Edxtn-t ioDo SA I D
Ltds. Stled Bait ApakadoW3824 Cesal Dqaetanat Stem
Rua Paetoaotd e,, 129 BEb y-400 Init 3K6S§a1a Road
13/14 AsoafAF RDad 01i1 fiS
CANADA NRa 1D -1100D2 Neilsat Back StWt T1NAD & TOBAGO, ANTIGUXS
Le Diff-ir 701 SMadArs,n
CP. 1ASl35 BAJtUI BARRADOS,
rueAmpire 27 Cidta-ja Avan-e P.O. B. l934 DOMIICk, GRENADA, GUYANA,
BReadlil @adbaa
h C"aft- 700 072 I,Issoidaile JAMACA, MONTSERAT, ST.
J48 MS6
TTrS ll NEVWS,ST. LOOt:l
Jaybeva HeallEd lding POLAED ST. VINCENT & GRENADINES
CHINA SSaMi Raead Gadodnegs ORPAN Un
SejdjjJpdt
C Ftb dHati &BEaanida Publishing Balme- 5e tC09 Peac Klap i Naetda9 IWai Strlew
He 0-}l Watawa C-aapt
4 Dc FaSiDsigj 3-S-112D IK gda C Road Trtoided, Wat hald.
Ed4t Nyderbad - S 027 PORTUGAL
U vaitPrtugal ',1Y
COLOAMBIA Ps-baa a FItS, 2nd Flo Raa Do C-n- 70-74 Healt Kitapni, AS.
Ese ide. Nr .Thkore a, Nvraogpa 1202 1lna iCHkal added Ne. 469
Apatadb Aaeo 34270 Ahamdebad -3110OW Bsagal
:k4 t D.E. SAUDI ARABA, QATAR btbo
Pa6ila Howe jal&B kSte
COTE D'IVODE1 1-4A Ashk Mi P.Q BOX31S96 UG0A;A
Ce d'Bditim k de Dlftuita telaiw-226tIR1 Riyadh 11471 Uganda Eoadp
Aftkoleas (CEDA)
P.O. Bax 7145
IH BYP.541 C/CONESIA M?atSItB hdmJn Swrvie Kan-pa
Abtdjo 04 Paeu FL hidira 1limited 5 y R4a
1L S=t Rttdawin 37 Al Ale. Sh,ew 02 55 Ra5fi EMBRATES
CYPRUS Pfl. RantS! Al Ua- Cnl 243-ARE Gili Ca.
MM ERB hatmaaoln Saivia Ja kaSe Peali Risa F7, P.O. axaV7
P.O.Qa 705.O. ?l 714SS :Tirh
ITALY ?4y2dk
.Lb C-ada iSaonsa SPA flR iTr71GcoG
U lCr;RJCA.E VL73;leVaB
dMtaFrltn13/120jID -iA Wd.Ua AlanS luilding 2tia-ci Ltd.
Saaatasaidet,tt3raae 4 e-tale
eCandl532 aw Md Stret P.O. n2X 3
RoanoiA ALS 11 931)23Plaa P.O. Sa.x 3m9 AltLen Hamp- GU34 2piP
DK-1970 Freda Sie*e
C JLA N rola Sepjad
DO1 MINICANREPUBIIC Satin book San-t 35, Adatnaied H.- Aw-d Send URUGUAY
Edit.. Taler, C. po A. 374-, Flage 3-Chem Binkyo-ka 113 P.O. Bo- 9278 hiso Na-sIl deL ULib
Reateai-d6nLblaC.tdIc. 309 Tokyo jeddah S&nJaat116
Apwto4d Pad 2190
Matxvida
Santo Dominga X3 SWaG-ANDF TA VAN, sir 7AR,
AS,ca Y,k Sew-
a (a.l) LId. ... DA"37< CaoLLA
EL SALVADOR P.O. Baa 45245 iaaaSc Pniliken jta dat Rbx
FYtad N-tioN TJr-afi Ltd. Ap .a. a2337
Amdda icaiad EariqucAr ejueu63325 C-C , Pe-Pic Ind-mr C-ata1(6-A
PlA-doSMAk l. Fis D d EA, REPURBIC OFPB h dg.
Sea Sdvala FM Ite Read Cmpamanitr
ie Raw Cidnat
,7 Seed Rd -Vie:LAs
P.O. Box 210, Kw.agwhn -Caa 1953 JaaLnl Xi4Wa
EGrfT, 6 Bil ILIC OF SWul P.O. BCY 6
Al Ah- 2/441222AIRICA, ROTSWANA
Coic Street Tag AILkGBaJ
-Al ICUIAIT FrSJti&LT-l6lnlad
Celo ME5R3 klo- aa- Sier Oad a ani,y Prn SBa&ia.
B
P.O.Rota s3 Alel
'r7 ,e asedBatl Cerv P 53.eTa 2141
4Qioarl SUnst MI
t. ''.5 e.7 Tti
Clas U'Ut-8eay o. hlalaye COpatlie
Riaslico117,ja
F~.O. imiFted
BeIllV,olat
Panic En ha
u-,amta4/t suh3d-at -
Iaswatsfn.a Sdo'p&n Sravant
at.e Laapie P.O. BOY41095

Joknaaa* 2
S24
RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS (continued)

No. 93 Batstone, Smith, and Wilson, TheSafeDisposalofHazardousWastes:The SpecialNeedsand Problemsof

DevelopingCountries
No. 94 Le Moigne, Barghouti, and Plusquellec, Technological
and InstitutionalInnovationin Irrigation
No. 95 Swanson and Wolde-Semait,Africa'sPublicEnterpriseSectorand Evidenceof Reforms
No. 96 Razavi, TheNew Eraof PetroleumTrading:SpotOil, Spot-RelatedContracts,and FuturesMarkets
No. 97 Asia Technical Department and Europe, Middle East, and North Africa Technical Department,
Improvingthe Supplyof Fertilizersto DevelopingCountries:A Summaryof the WorldBank's
Experience
No. 98 Moreno and Fallen Bailey, AlternativeTransportFuelsfromNatural Gas
No. 99 International Comnmissionon Irrigation and Drainage, Planning theManagement,Operation,and
MaintenanceofIrrigationand DrainageSystems:A Guidefor the Preparationof Strategiesand
Manuals(also in French, 99F)
No. 100 Veldkamp, RecommendedPracticesfor Testing Water-PumpingWindmills
No. 101 van Meel and Smulders, Wind Pumping:A Handbook
No. 102 Berg and Brems, A Casefor PromotingBreastfeedingin Projectsto LimitFertility
No. 103 Banerjee, Shrubsin TropicalForestEcosystems:ExamplesfromIndia
No. 104 Schware, The WorldSoftwareIndustry and SoftwareEngineering:Opportunitiesand Constraintsfor
Newly IndustrializedEconomies
No. 105 Pasha and McGarry, Rural WaterSupply and Sanitationin Pakistan:Lessonsfrom Experience
No. 106 Pinto and Besant-Jones,Demandand NetbackValuesfor Gasin Electricity
No. 107 ElectricPower Research Institute and EMENA, The CurrentStateofAtmosphericFluidized-Bed
CombustionTechnology
No. 108 Falloux, LandInformationand RemoteSensingforRenewableResourceManagementin Sub-Saharan
Africa:A Demand-DrivenApproach(also in French, 108F)
No. 109 Carr, Technologyfor Small-ScaleFarmersin Sub-SaharanAfrica:Experiencewith FoodCropProduction
in FiveMajorEcologicalZones
No. 110 Dixon, Talbot, and Le Moigne, Damsand the Environment:Considerations in WorldBankProjects
No. 111 Jeffcoateand Pond, LargeWaterMeters:Guidelinesfor Selection,Testing,andMaintenance
No. 112 Cook and Grut, Agroforestryin Sub-SaharanAfrica:A Farmer'sPerspective
No. 113 Vergara and Babelon, ThePetrochemical Industry in DevelopingAsia:A Reviewof the Current
Situationand Prospectsfor Developmentin the 1990s
No. 114 McGuire and Popkins, HelpingWomenImproveNutrition in the DevelopingWorld:Beatingthe Zero
Sum Game
No. 115 Le Moigne, Plusquellec, and Barghouti, Dam Safety andthe Environment
No. 116 Nelson, DrylandManagement:The"Desertification"Problem
No. 117 Lessonsfrom EastAsia
Barghouti, Timmer, and Siegel, RuralDiversification:
No. 118 Pritchard, Lendingby the WorldBankfor AgriculturalResearch:A Reviewof the Years1981through
1987
No. 119 Asia RegionTechnical Department, FloodControlin Bangladesh: A Planfor Action
No. 120 Plusquellec, The GeziraIrrigationSchemein Sudan:Objectives,Design,and Performance
No. 121 Listorti, EnvironmentalHealthComponentsfor WaterSupply, Sanitation,and UrbanProjects
No. 122 Lessonsfor Sub-SaharanAfrica
Dessing, Supportfor Microenterprises:
No. 123 Barghouti and Le Moigne, Irrigationin Sub-SaharanAfrica:TheDevelopmentof PublicandPrivate
Systems
No. 124 Zymelman, Science,Education,and Developmentin Sub-SaharanAfrica
No. 125 van de Walle and Foster, FertilityDeclinein Africa:AssessmentandProspects
 The World Bank E oi
Headquarters European Office Tokyo Office
1818 H Street, N.W. 66, avenue d'lena Kokusai Building
Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. 75116 Paris, France 1-1 Marunouchi 3-chome
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan
Telephone: (202) 477-1234 Telephone: (1) 40.69.30.00
Facsimile: (202) 477-6391 Facsimile: (1) 47.20.19.66 Telephone: (3) 214-5001
Telex: wul 64145 WORLDBANK Telex: 842-620628 Facsimile: (3) 214-3657
RCA 248423 WORLDBK Telex: 781-26838
Cable Address: INTBAFRAD
WASH[NGTONDC

Cover design by Walton Rosenquist ISBN 0-8213-1601-X